RSS

# 12 Dec 2 - Translation and Globalization

張貼者： NTNU GITI BLOG on 2010年9月17日 星期五
標籤：
#12 Translation in the Global Village ed. Christina Schäffner, Vlevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2000.

5 意見:

Unknown 提到...

本書的前身是1999年在英國Aston大學舉行的研討會，全書雖然由Christina Schäffner主編，但最主要的文章是Mary Snell-Hornby的〈Communicating in the Global Village: On Language, Translation and Cultural Identity〉，搭配文後的討論，探討全球化情境下的「全球主義」(globalism) 和「部落主義」(tribalism)如何影響文化認同(cultural identity)，英語作為中介語、各種地方英語、以及新混合型態(hybridity) 的層面，討論各地的語言現象，並切入科技對譯者的影響，最後提出：在這個跨國而疆域不再明顯的時代，對翻譯的概念不應只像19世紀Grimm提出的漂洋過海，而比較像是1996年Violante-Cassetta提出的Jack in the Year 2000概念，(17, 26)需要有多元的技能、技術和專業，跨越語言和文化的障礙。(25-26, 72)而在後續的討論及回應中，有極大篇幅都鎖定文化認同和英語的各種面向、對譯者造成什麼樣的困難，特別是McEnglish/McLanguage的概念，不僅作為目標語有其難處，甚至有許多時候的問題是來自於McEnglish作為來源語，在所謂「原意」的傳遞上已有障礙。Anderman的回應十分鮮活：「McEnglish只適合作為速食的語言，而不能作為美食的語言」(49)，但偏偏在全球化的時代，可能主要市場要求的也就是速食而已。而在市場上的方方面面、英語這種語言的變動不拘，由後續幾篇回應不斷提出許多想法，但似乎還是沒有必然恰當的做法。回應之中，Zlateva的立場似乎相當樂觀而正面，認為譯者是全球化的協調者(mediator)，應反映出現有的文化和政治類型及刻板印象，進一步則能推動加以定義。(68)雖說如此，但由於譯者面對的實在不僅「文化」一項，就目前看來，似乎只能說譯者必須對全球化引起的潮流有所認識，才不會身陷其中而不自知、完全失去「選擇」的能力。

2010年12月1日 下午1:06
Unknown 提到...

Although this week’s reading was collected into quite a thin little book, it was, none the less, a book packed full of information. Of particular interest was the central section dedicated to presenting the discussion — debate — that took place between several of the “movers and shakers” of Translation Studies. The relaxed, yet pointed, tone of the exchange offered — I feel — some insight into the thinking and, perhaps, theoretical leanings of the parties involved. The first part of the “Debate”, pages 29 to 33, was helpful in the sense that it demonstrated that even world-renowned scholars miss the point sometimes. I found it humorous that Mary Snell-Hornby had to continually remind the others that her criticism of Venuti’s use of the term cultural identity was not so much about how it was defined but, rather, about the fact that he didn’t explain the term’s meaning in the particular sense in which he used it. This is a courtesy that is merely taken for granted in the scientific literature. If one uses a term in a non-conventional sense, the desired sense of the word must be presented to the reader. This is as obvious — read “no-brainer” — a gesture as cleaning up any small packages left on the sidewalk by your pet! Aside from reminding Translation Studies Scholars to, please, clean up after your pets, I would also like to suggest that any discussion of a self-correcting mechanism between globalisation and tribalism — as brought up by Mona Baker (on behalf of Michael Holman) on page 35 — might also benefit from the incorporation of certain notions championed by the field of memetics. Such a mechanism, for example, might function in a fashion similar to the natural-selection-style system that some — Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976) — have promoted as a best-fit description of the proliferation and extinction of memes within our societies. Memetics has been criticized as being nothing more than an oversimplification of the principles behind the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. It is useful, however, to start somewhere!

2010年12月1日 晚上9:50
Craig 1 of 2 提到...

Many interesting points of view regarding the use of English under the tension created by globalism and tribalism are discussed in Translation in the Global Village, particularly with regards to the United States and its assumed role in the active promotion of English as a universal language.

In suggesting “McEnglish” is somehow derived from or a reflection of American English (p12), Mary Snell-Hornby seems to want to ignore a vast population of American writers that have, in various capacities, written some wonderful stuff over the last 200 years. It seems to me there is nothing “McEnglish” about Clemens, Poe, Hawthorne, Hemmingway, Whitman, Burroughs, Pynchon, Vonnegut, James, Melville, Angelou, Morrison, Dickinson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson or even the thousands of competent writers who make their livings at newspapers and magazine in the United States today (lists are easy to come by). Her use of the “Mc” prefix is impolitic and patently offensive rhetoric. Even more egregious is her startling ignorance: Americans have no use for “McEnglish,” it is non-native speakers who have co-opted some form of the language to serve as a new Esperanto, usually for business transactions or travel. As some of the other scholars suggest (Munday, 58), there is no need for value judgement regarding this usage, but suggesting that Americans are somehow responsible for, or even tolerant of cheap English is grossly irresponsible. The fact is that the EU promotes a flat and barely expressive form of bureaucratic English for their own purposes, which is about as exciting as wet cardboard.

I was happy to see the except from Arundhati Roy’s “The God of Small Things” (24). Introduced as an example of hybrid “postcolonial prose,” Roy’s writing is as beautifully evocative as it is “non-standard,” which supports the view that ownership of a language is claimed by using it with both grace and purpose. Tying language, especially English, to any one nation seems hopelessly idealistic, and setting rigid standards for “native” usage also seems to deny many valid and wonderful possibilities.

2010年12月2日 凌晨12:35
Craig 2 of 2 提到...

Hornby goes on to raise some questions (which no one seems willing to agree with) about Venuti’s use of the term “cultural identity” in his paper “Translation and the Formation of Cultural Identities.” It seems to me that Mr Venuti’s use of terms is quite accurate, and his explication of exactly what he means by “cultural identity,” as well as his concepts in other writings, is crystal clear. Furthermore his theories are insightful, and his notion of formation of cultural identities through translation have done much to move the field of translation studies forward, particularly in North America where translated texts are rarely identified as such.

Many of the scholars offer balanced and insightful assessments of interesting and controversial topics such as training, new technology, the role of the translator, translation assessment, etc. Debating and discussing these issues seems to be enough without resorting to the kinds of attacks which Hornby seems to enjoy.

When Newmark suggests that Hornby “is too discreet,” I was amused. When she answered his sarcasm is all seriousness, I was delighted. Who knew the world of translation would be so much fun.

2010年12月2日 凌晨12:36
Jennifer 提到...

書中pp.16~17提到文化認同以及作者觀察的結論深感興趣。若以框架理論檢視此部份，可說每種通用語 (lingua franca) 是一個最大的框架，其下可再細分為其他流通但有明顯不同的語言。接下來，在這些框架的重疊之處，再衍生出另一種混合型式的語言。這種從上而下的觀點相當清楚易懂，但在仔細檢視之後，其實可以發現幾乎所有的人所說的都是「混合」的語言，因為我們無時無刻不受到各種文化的衝擊：外來文化（如：使用XX祭）、青少年文化（如：真瞎）、網路文化（如：Orz、踹共）等等，因此我們永遠處在各種框架的交會處，在不同的場合與時機，我們會有不同的文化認同，永遠不可能單一而純粹。

2010年12月2日 凌晨12:44

張貼留言