#17 Research project presentation
這週四是我們最後一次上課，我們改在 Cafe Bastille 上課。
地點：Cafe Bastille
地址：台北市大安區泰順街40巷23號
電話：(02) 2369-9728
大家可以中餐加下午茶一起解決。:)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(102)
-
▼
9月
(40)
-
▼
9月 17
(38)
- # 17 Jan 5 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 18 Jan 12 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 16 Dec 29 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 15 Dec 22 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 14 Dec 15 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 13 Dec 8 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 12 Dec 1 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 11 Nov 24 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 10 Nov 17 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 9 Nov 10 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 8 Nov 3 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 7 Oct 27 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 6 Oct 20 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 5 Oct 13 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 4 Oct 6 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 3 Sept 22 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 2 Sept 22 - Studies on Translation Theories
- # 1 Sept 15 - Studies on Translation Theories
- Studies on Translation Theories
- # 18 Jan 13 - Translation and Globalization
- # 17 Jan 6 - Translation and Globalization
- # 16 Dec 30 - Translation and Globalization
- # 15 Dec 23 - Translation and Globalization
- # 14 Dec 16 - Translation and Globalization
- # 13 Dec 9 - Translation and Globalization
- # 12 Dec 2 - Translation and Globalization
- #11 Nov 25 - Translation and Globalization
- # 10 Nov 18 - Translation and Globalization
- # 9 Nov 11 - Translation and Globalization
- # 8 Nov 4 - Translation and Globalization
- # 7 Oct 28 - Translation and Globalization
- # 6 Oct 21 - Translation and Globalization
- # 5 Oct 14 - Translation and Globalization
- # 4 Oct 7 - Translation and Globalization
- # 3 Sept 30 - Translation and Globalization
- # 2 Sept 23 - Translation and Globalization
- # 1 Sept 16 -Translation and Globalization
- Translation and Globalization
-
▼
9月 17
(38)
-
▼
9月
(40)
Copyright 2009
NTNU GITI BLOG
All rights reserved | Powered by
Blogger
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress Theme by EZwpthemes
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress Theme by EZwpthemes
12 意見:
歐陽楨以櫥窗做隱喻形容跨文化研究，購物者透過玻璃看見櫥窗內擺設的商品，而透明的玻璃又能夠反射自己的身影。在這篇文章中，作者提出，不同文化對於知識的觀點與思維不一定相同，而且我們所使用的語言對於我們的思路有很大的影響，一種語言蘊涵的觀念不見得可以由另一種語言準確地表達出來。因此在知識全球化的過程中，如果我們僅以一種文化、一種語言為核心，必然會有偏失。作者認為比較文學採用跨領域、多種語言的研究方式是合宜的。他引述了新加坡官員根據《紐約時報》1995年的一次調查所做的預測：「英文的廣泛使用終將受到挑戰，網際網路會成為一種多元文化的媒介。」在網路方面，那位官員的預測實現了。根據Internet World Stats，英文的網絡使用率佔42%，這個比例還會逐年遞減，因為中文、西班牙文、阿拉伯文的成長速度遠超過英文。也許這是為什麼Google要推出機器翻譯的原因，多種語言的趨勢再加上網頁數量之眾，機器翻譯是一種重要的輔助工具。在另一篇文中，作者提出，邊緣未必是負面的，處於邊緣有時候反而能看得更清楚。我想到蘇東坡是流放到黃州時，才寫出《念奴嬌•赤壁懷古》與前、後《赤壁賦》。翻譯工作者似乎也是處於比較邊緣的地位，我們是否因此而看得更清楚呢？
作者另一篇文章討論中文詩詞中指示詞的英文翻譯。相較於英文，中文的指示詞似乎比較含糊多樣，以至於作者對於其中一首詩有了出乎意料的理解。中文的這種特質反映了什麼文化特色或思維方式呢？
The articles, talk, and movie (I watched “Czech Dream”) that make up the past two weeks’ reading assignment have driven home, for me, the following point: An understanding of the whole is best sought through an acknowledgment of the relationships that exist between its disparate parts. This seems to be the main sentiment behind the two Eugene Chen Eoyang articles that we read this week. I must admit, reading these articles felt a bit voyeuristic at times. The author seemed to be writing more for his own pleasure — he seems to love the sound of his own voice — than for the purpose of expressing any particular point. My best guess, however, is that the articles were written in an attempt to bolster the author’s call for a more inclusive approach to the globalization of knowledge. In other words, the globalization of knowledge should come about through recognition of the relationships that exist between disparate parts rather than through an attempted homogenization of these parts. The movie “Czech Dream”, I feel, did an excellent job of focusing the discourse upon relationships between disparate parts of a given whole. The “whole” in this case was multifaceted: consumerism; nationalism; the media; identification with/of self and other; and so on. Finally, this notion of relationships between disparate parts creating a window to the whole (ha, ha that’s funny) is something that, I believe, could help to clarify some of 黃宗儀教授’s claims about “migrant labour and emotional intimacy”. Her research was extremely interesting but I felt that it lacked proper acknowledgement of the all-important local culture/customs — especially those related to work and family — upon which the Taiwanese treatment of domestic help is so obviously based.
黃宗儀 lecture:
Difficulties faced by Southeast Asian workers in Taiwan surely arise due to systemic conditions as well as social ones. For this reason the films and readings presented by Huang Tsung-i seem to only touch upon deeper social realities. Regarding systems of governance, it would be interesting to look a little more closely at how the Taiwanese government both reflects and guides popular attitudes with immigration laws. It seems reasonable that the NIA (移民署) controls the inflow of workers in such a way to effectively meet certain nationalistic goals. In the case of caregivers, their presence raises the GDP by freeing locals (who would otherwise have to care for ailing relatives) to work and apply more remunerative professional skills. For this reason, foreign caregivers must be willing to work long hours and for low pay, which can only be realizable when an adequate wealth gap exists between Taiwan and the countries in question. From the films, it could be seen that the humanity of these workers' is a secondary consideration under the current system, which is opportunistic and perhaps somewhat exploitative. (It should be noted that different laws apply to people from wealthier countries) Are these Southeast Asian workers permitted to bring dependent family members with them? Are they encouraged to relocate, integrate into society as equals and build lives here? Are they treated as guests, workers, friends, family or foreigners? What legal rights do they have? Are they given professional training for the jobs they are asked to undertake? Actually, it seems most live a fully contingent existence in Taiwan, and I suppose it could be argued that they choose to come here and so must also choose to live that way; but is that really what everyone wants? I can only assume that the system does the bidding of the people of Taiwan, and everyone really wants these half-souls in perpetual contingency drifting through their lives. To be sure, having a Filipino maid confers status, and there exists an attitude of virtue in employing needy foreigners. Another point left unexplored is the loss incurred when the elderly spend their last days in the care of a stranger rather than a family member. It seems this phenomenon is related to the breakdown of the traditional extended family; but again is this really what everyone wants?
Difficulties faced by Southeast Asian workers in Taiwan surely arise due to systemic conditions as well as social ones. For this reason the films and readings presented by Huang Tsung-i seem to only touch upon deeper social realities. Regarding systems of governance, it would be interesting to look a little more closely at how the Taiwanese government both reflects and guides popular attitudes with immigration laws. It seems reasonable that the NIA (移民署) controls the inflow of workers in such a way to effectively meet certain nationalistic goals. In the case of caregivers, their presence raises the GDP by freeing locals (who would otherwise have to care for ailing relatives) to work and apply more remunerative professional skills. For this reason, foreign caregivers must be willing to work long hours and for low pay, which can only be realizable when an adequate wealth gap exists between Taiwan and the countries in question. From the films, it could be seen that the humanity of these workers' is a secondary consideration under the current system, which is opportunistic and perhaps somewhat exploitative. (It should be noted that different laws apply to people from wealthier countries) Are these Southeast Asian workers permitted to bring dependent family members with them? Are they encouraged to relocate, integrate into society as equals and build lives here? Are they treated as guests, workers, friends, family or foreigners? What legal rights do they have? Are they given professional training for the jobs they are asked to undertake? Actually, it seems most live a fully contingent existence in Taiwan, and I suppose it could be argued that they choose to come here and so must also choose to live that way; but is that really what everyone wants? I can only assume that the system does the bidding of the people of Taiwan, and everyone really wants these half-souls in perpetual contingency drifting through their lives. To be sure, having a Filipino maid confers status, and there exists an attitude of virtue in employing these needy guest workers. Another point left unexplored is the loss incurred when the elderly spend their last days in the care of a stranger rather than a family member. It seems this phenomenon is related to the breakdown of the traditional extended family; but again is this really what everyone wants?
Difficulties faced by Southeast Asian workers in Taiwan surely arise due to systemic conditions as well as social ones. For this reason the films and readings presented by Huang Tsung-i seem to only touch upon deeper social realities. Regarding systems of governance, it would be interesting to look a little more closely at how the Taiwanese government both reflects and guides popular attitudes with immigration laws. It seems reasonable that the NIA (移民署) controls the inflow of workers in such a way to effectively meet certain nationalistic goals. In the case of caregivers, their presence raises the GDP by freeing locals (who would otherwise have to care for ailing relatives) to work and apply more remunerative professional skills. For this reason, foreign caregivers must be willing to work long hours and for low pay, which can only be realizable when an adequate wealth gap exists between Taiwan and the countries in question. From the films, it could be seen that the humanity of these workers' is a secondary consideration under the current system, which is opportunistic and perhaps somewhat exploitative. (It should be noted that different laws apply to people from wealthier countries)
Are these Southeast Asian workers permitted to bring dependent family members with them? Are they encouraged to relocate, integrate into society as equals and build lives here? Are they treated as guests, workers, friends, family or foreigners? What legal rights do they have? Are they given professional training for the jobs they are asked to undertake? Actually, it seems most live a fully contingent existence in Taiwan, and I suppose it could be argued that they choose to come here and so must also choose to live that way; but is that really what everyone wants? I can only assume that the system does the bidding of the people of Taiwan, and everyone really wants these half-souls in perpetual contingency drifting through their lives. To be sure, having a Filipino maid confers status, and there exists an attitude of virtue in employing these needy guest workers. Another point left unexplored is the loss incurred when the elderly spend their last days in the care of a stranger rather than a family member. It seems this phenomenon is related to the breakdown of the traditional extended family; but again is this really what everyone wants?
本週所選兩篇歐陽楨的文章，的確還滿適合作為學期結束的選文，雖然風格確實比較像是作者本人的絮絮隨語，但也對全球化提出另外的觀點看法。一般談全球化不外乎經濟和政治，但歐陽楨則由翻譯的角度，切入了知識、觀點的全球化。許多在平常視為理所當然、或是推理所必要的事情，其實都可能有其他的角度存在，而要在跨出自己的疆界之後，才能看到其他的可能性。某種程度而言，這一點其實完全不新鮮，早在doctor of philosophy這個詞創出來的時候，就是一個單純的「愛智」傾向，而不專限於某個學科學門，因此討論〈The Globalization of Knowledge〉的時候，其實可以發現知識本身的純粹，真正有影響的是體制問題，在知識及資訊擴張到人無法獨力處理的時候，不得不透過體制加以分工，但在分工之後，又使其中的個人難以得窺全貌（甚至只是Office軟體也是如此）。
似乎已經是老生常談，但在全球化與在地化、全貌與細節、廣度與深度等種種幾乎註定互相拉扯的對比之間，個人唯一得以依賴的只有意識而已。或許體制本身難以撼動，但無感卻是更大的問題所在。只要找到自己在其間的定位，並且能在合理範圍內說服自己，應該就不至於感到失落或過於無能為力。
最後一點是關於語言。正如歐陽楨所指出，「單一」(one)的概念實在難以維繫，所有的「同」之中，總還是有些「異」的部分。世界無法靠著單一的體制、單一的語言運行，於是真正的相同之處可能就只在於「異」的「譯」。真正的大同世界不是「大家講同一種話」，而是「雖然各講各的，但能夠透過翻譯的機制而彼此瞭解」。自然，這牽扯到過多經濟利益及成本問題，恐怕難以在短期內實現，但畢竟，懷抱著希望仍然是件好事。
Turning to Eoyang, the discussion of deictics is central to Chinese/English translation; certainly more so than ethnocentric theories which note shifts away from equivalencies based in the grammar of western languages. Among the many incongruous ways in which knowledge is conveyed in the Chinese/English pair, representations of “selves” and pronoun usage is a model case. Indiscriminate use of 他她它牠 makes for unreadable Chinese, and simply glossing over implied meanings when translating in the other direction is inadequate. Into English, the solution is to present the information in a way that is normative for the English language (this is not to say that the information is normative for western culture, that is a wholly different issue and I think closer to Venuti's notion of foreignization), and when the structure of prose is necessarily so transformed from source to target, much time and effort is expended in the process of rewriting.
Eoyang's discussions of knowledge construction and liminal states are equally incisive. Guy Deutscher, in his book “Through the Language Glass,” claims “a growing body of reliable scientific research provides solid evidence that our mother tongue can affect how we think and how we perceive the world.” Cognitive science bears this statement out, and Ernst-August Gutt's Relevance Theory is a comprehensive application of these scientific theories to translation. Furthermore, David Hollinger's notion of “cosmopolitanism” is a purely American addition to this ongoing discourse: he envisions difference as asset in the process of achieving “a more complete human experience,” and the quilting together multicultural communities. Eoyang seems to make a laundry list of interesting ideas worthy of discussion, but I was curious about his gloss translation of 天涯 as “the end of the world.” Was he purposely conflating the temporal liminal state implied by this English phrase with the image of “pathos, an expression either of self-pity at being relegated to the outer reaches of the empire, or of longing for a beloved in distant exile” in the Chinese? Do both phrases equally imply transitions to a radically new era and a radically foreign land? Perhaps yes, or perhaps the translator hasn't taken into account how this phrase is most often used in the western context. This kind of sensitivity is key in making the shift from one cultural system to another.
我要回應的是”11. The Globalization of Knowledge: Compartive Literature as Interdisciplinary and Multilingual Discourse” 這篇。我覺得這篇起碼道出了學術教育一直以來將西歐的思想體系視為「世界」思想源流的錯覺。「道」一字在英譯的過程中，為了符合一般英文的用字習慣與句構，便顯露出不同語言在不同在表達思想概念時的差距。
而「道」這個字在不同語言中的表現，的確又讓人聯想起班雅明對於「字」(德文Wort; 英文 word) 的重視。而他引用那句赫赫有名的《創世紀》第一句「太初有道，道與神同在，道就是神」(德譯 Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort.; 英譯"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” 在這句話裡面，我們已經可以明顯的看出，中文的聖經翻譯已經加入了中國思想的元素，如「太初」、「道」，但言說、字等概念已被忽略。歌德在《浮士德》中也藉浮士德這個人物，對這句話的德譯作了許多次斟酌。他先翻成太初有言（有字，各個譯本不同），後來改譯成“太初有思”（有感，有心），又覺得要謹慎翻譯，光有思想沒法創造萬物，要靠力量，就改成了“太初有力”，後來又改成了“太初有爲！(當然，別忘了，這只是中譯)，足見這句話在哲學的思考上多麼具有代表性，又是與言各說各話的多麼好的一個例子。
一個字在各語言間的可譯與不可譯，於是呈現出所謂的「巴別」現象，依德悉達對這個字的闡述，又是一種不可譯的「專有名詞(proper name)」。但是對於文中將這個概念在衍伸出”pre-Babelian”, “the Babelian”, “the post Babelian”，並認為”the post Babelian”是”the world where everyone would understand everyone else’s language.” 總覺得有點不妥。因為Babel這個字已經夠不可譯了，任意再產出一個post-Babel 且指稱為一種美好的期待雖然並無不可，但「後巴別」似乎會讓人想到「後班雅明」這類的用語，實在留下無數想象與自我表述的空間語混亂。
另外，我喜歡globalization of knowledge的想法，也就是restructuring the social sciences的論述，我認為，這種restructuing其實隨時都在進行中。以大學的肇始為例。十二世紀如波隆那、巴黎、劍橋、牛津四大創始大學均以神學、文學、法律、醫學為必修科目。而現代大學之始，1810年由William von Humbolt創設的柏林大學亦以哲學、法學、醫學、神學四科為重，足見我們現在的大學分科，實在只佔了很短暫的時間，且我們也眼見著他不斷因社會的改變而消長。跨學科的學習從前述大學的科目看來其實一直都是歐洲的傳統，以「全人教育」為宗旨。德國的magister (一般翻譯為文科碩士，有別於diplom)的修業要求亦均要求學生必須修習一個主修、兩個副修，或者兩個主修才能完成課業標準。但很諷刺的是，因為這樣的修業相較於其他國家顯得沒有「效益」，因此許多大學已仿效英美學制，magister或許即將走入歷史 (這或許也是全球化的影響?)。不過，若要重視跨學科的研究，輔系或雙主修的要求的確是可以討論的方向。而這樣的要求或許更可以刺激相關系所的教師彼此更能相互尊重與交流。
Here and Now這篇當中提到指示詞的部份，讓我想起劉禾《跨語際實踐》的第六章，該篇提到指示詞並非單純的代名詞，而是建構出相對觀念，這正呼應了本篇中的論點：各種第一人稱的代名詞(如：朕、妾、臣...等)使用時即已建構了一種相對關係。即便如陶潛飲酒詩般未明確點出主詞的作品，本身其實已蘊含一種指渉。於是，文中的英譯也刻意省略(或用括號括起)主詞，避免譯作有過強的指涉。
張貼留言