RSS

#7 Historical Study - 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：
#7 Historical Study
孔慧怡，2005。【重寫翻譯史】。香港：商務印書館。

4 意見:

charlotte wu 提到...

在閱讀《重寫翻譯史》時，我對中國的翻譯史有了ㄧ些新的體認。孔慧怡老師首先由佛經翻譯這個脈絡來介紹由「中國」ㄧ詞所涵蓋的疆土下如何看待翻譯。佛經的翻譯確實是我國翻譯史上一重要階段。孔老師統計出經典流傳以及影響的範圍，並由此來看這個跨時約七個世紀的翻譯活動。當中有幾個現象對我來說相當有趣。首先打破我既有概念的，是西域各國之間的界線。先前的看法，都很主觀的認定西域各國應與中國的交通較為頻繁。但卻忽略了各國之間的交際以及互動。我想，這也許跟我國傳統習慣(包括歷史教科書也是)以「胡」統稱外族有關吧。西域各國的個體性常常被忽略。透過西域各國，佛經在重譯下輾轉傳入中國。這中間牽涉許多文化、人力以及語言。在此狀況下，我想，當時的翻譯活動，已經不能單純的以文本之間的比對來看待。當中的文化、語言的觀點和規範，才是這個時期翻譯活動當中最有趣的面向吧! 因此，孔老師提出翻譯不應該再以直譯意譯論之，而應看重譯者的文化觀、譯作技巧和譯本的實際功能等多重面向檢視之，這個部份我非常認同。

其次，孔老師在書中第二部分將中國翻譯史視為事務翻譯與文化翻譯的雙線發展。但我認為，僅將中國翻譯活動分為此二類似乎有討論的空間。畢竟，事務翻譯所指涉的偏重翻譯的實務功能，範圍相對來說較為狹窄。而文化翻譯的所包含的題材又太大。若單純將佛經以及基督宗教的翻譯活動視為兩種文化(例如中國與佛教文化、基督宗教文化與中國文化)也許有值得商榷的地方。例如，基督宗教的文化傳入，同時也帶進了希羅文化甚至是阿拉伯文化。我想，這就是文化翻譯所必然包含的複雜性與曲折性吧! 雖然此書未能全面的提供中國翻譯史相關資料，但我認為孔老師的確為我們提出了許多相當創新的觀點與視角。

2010年4月9日 晚上11:39
Elaine Lee 提到...

這星期我們閱讀的是孔慧怡所撰寫的《重寫翻譯史》一書，書中有幾個特點我覺得很有趣，而且也為未來翻譯研究提供了一些新的想法和方向。在書中孔女士常常會提及她自己對於翻譯活動研究的想法，比方說，她強調從事翻譯研究的人，應該比別人更能分辨普世文化、主導文化和翻譯史研究三者的不同之處，這點我感到很受用，這樣的觀點，能使我們用較宏觀的角度看待翻譯，而不限於只是以一般主流文化的觀點為主或是只討論文本分析，尤其她在討論佛經翻譯時，特別指出翻譯活動與主流文化的相互關係及互動，這讓我們看到了一般不易察覺的一個面向，而她對於佛經翻譯活動的描寫和敘述，也讓人不得不佩服她蒐集資料之豐富，梳理分析的過程具邏輯性。同時孔女士在書寫時常常丟出一些議題讓後代翻譯研究者思考，例如她覺得譯者在說和做之間的差異，還有研究者有意無意維護或蔑視某些譯者，都是翻譯研究的好題材，這些都值得我們加以研究。
我在讀這本書時，會覺得作者好像把大部分篇幅都投入在描述佛經翻譯活動中，對於西學運動及清末民初的翻譯運動就少很多，如果說能夠投以相當的精力和篇幅，是不是這本書就會更豐富許多？而不只是讀來好像是中國翻譯史的補充教材，當然作者的編輯方式也許是建基於新材料之上，因此其他的部分，如各朝代除了佛經及西學翻譯活動以外的資料，也許得靠後人繼續努力。最後，孔女士提到翻譯研究者必須要多加涉獵歷史、文學、哲學等其他學科，才能對中國翻譯經驗有全面的了解，這讓我相當汗顏，但同時她的說法也指出這都是我們需要努力的方向。

2010年4月12日 晚上7:58
Craig 提到...

Eva Hung looks at two thousand years of translation history in China from the perspective of two sources of texts. In her first category, she outlines the evolution of Buddhist translation, from the recording of spoken teachings and their eventual codification into well organized and funded institutions. It interesting that most of the early sutra translators were done by immigrants to China from the Uyghar region of Central Asia, pointing to the long history of concentration of knowledge and power in the center of the Chinese empire. Additionally, some unique features that Hung points to in the history of Buddhist translation are: the reliance on highly variable spoken teachings for early texts, which probably contributed to a high degree of distortion of the original message; the use of allegorical interpretation (格義), specifically the use of native Taoist principals to explain Buddhist concepts; and the eventual foundation of dynastic patronage and translation institutions (譯場). Over the course of a thousand years, these aspects of translation helped to found a strictly Chinese version of the Buddhist religion, which was in turn was passed on to other regions (Japan) where somewhat different version of the religion continued to evolve.

According to Hung's organizational scheme, the later phase of translation in China starts with contact with the West. Again, translation was used a means of proselytization, as well as used in various programs of nation building through the importation and manipulation of ideas. An interesting example of religious dogma reinterpreted to meet local conditions was the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom (太平天國), which some claim (Johnathan Spence) was founded upon an eccentric translation of the Bible. While the Taiping didn't fare so well in the end, it represents an important political moment related to translation, and its history has shaped official policy toward the dissemination and importation of ideas today.

We can see from Hung's book that variations arising from the interpretation, assimilation and re-coding of ideas have contributed to vastly influential moments in the history of China. Translation, as a central operation in this process, has the capacity to construct unique cultural and political institutions based on its imperfect nature.

2010年4月13日 中午12:05
Unknown 提到...

This week after reading Eva Hung’s article titled, “Rewriting Chinese Translation History” I felt that there were several interesting points worth mentioning. For example, Hung’s detailed description of Buddhist Sutra translation during the 2nd to 9th centuries in Mainland China draws attention to several important stages though which that campaign progressed. One example of this process is the way in which the Sutra translation work began with translators who were basically translating from their native language into a foreign target language, progressed to translators who were more or less fully bilingual, and was finally passed on to translators whose native language was clearly the target, not the source, language. However, it is interesting to note that the influence of non-Chinese translators was still felt well into the Tang Dynasty. This is an extremely long period of foreign influence.
A similar process can also be seen quite clearly in the Sutra translation campaign of modern times in which Chinese, Tibetan, and Japanese texts are translated into English, Spanish, or French. From the latter half of the 19th century right up until well into the middle of the 20th century, most sutra translation into English was done by translators whose native language was not English; for example, D.T. Suzuki, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Buddhist Text Translation Society. Beginning from the latter part of the 20th century and continuing to the present, the trend has been for native English speakers to translate the Sutras into English (French and Spanish texts are also being created by native speakers); for example, translators such as Edward Conze, Burton Watson, and Red Pine have all created English-language versions of many of the major Chinese and Tibetan Sutras. This process has also resulted in present-day Buddhist literature being chock-full of ‘native-English’ writings on and about Buddhism and Buddhist Sutras.
Hung’s article also points to an interesting parallel that can be drawn between Sutra translation in China and Bible translation in Europe, namely the influence of political ideology on translation of religious texts. Interestingly, Bible translation in Europe also had the added difficulty of a certain degree of infighting within the Christian religious tradition itself. I am uncertain as to whether or not Buddhism in China also encountered such problems, but it is clear that Sutra translation was strongly influenced by the variety of political/ideological circumstances present throughout the different Dynasties.
Finally, although the idea is not new, I still found it helpful that Hung reiterated the importance of situating translation norms of a given period within the context of the norms of the period that came before them. This is perhaps why Hung’s article is so successful at recreating a meaningful historical timeline of translation in China. By referring the norms of each period of translation back to those of its predecessors Hung brings to light the various extra-textual influences that have affected translation within what she calls China’s two major cultural-translation drives. Hung also extends this to offer a clear explanation of some of the views of translation that exist in present-day China as a result of the developments that took place in the translation of Western texts during the 20th century. It would be interesting to compare the three notions of translation that she mentions in the final section of the article with the present-day notions of translation in the West. Would they be similar? If so, why? Personally, I feel that the West would perhaps differ from China with regard to the third notion that Hung mentions, namely translation as an instrument for self-empowerment (self = national self). In my view, this is not necessarily seen as a function of translation in the West. Obviously, this is quite strongly related to a nation’s/language’s position on the world stage at a given time.

2010年4月13日 中午12:51

張貼留言