翻译练习 chapter1

扫码手机阅读
用圣才电子书APP或微信扫一扫,在手机上阅读本文,也可分享给你的朋友。
评论(0
  1.Read After Babel P248-249
  After Babel: The Claims of Theory
  The literature on the theory, practice, and history of translation is large. It can be divided into four periods, though the lines of division are in no sense absolute.
  The first period would extend from Cicero’s famous precept not to translate verbum pro verbo, in his Libellus de optimo genere oratorum of 46 B. C. and Horace’s reiteration of this formula in the Ars poetica some twenty years later, to Holderlin’s enigmatic commentary on his own translations from Sophocles (1804). This is the long period in which seminal analyses and pronouncements stem directly from the enterprise of the translator. It includes the observations and polemics of Saint Jerome, Luther’s magisterial Sendbriet vom Dolmetschen of 1530, the arguments of du Bellay, Montaigne, and Chapman, Jacques Amyot to the readers of his Plutarch translation, Ben Jonson on imitation, Dryden’s elaborations on Horace, Quintilian, and Jonson, Pope on Homer, Rochefort on the Iliad. Florio’s theory of translation arises directly from his efforts to render Montaigne; Cowley’s general views are closely derived from the nearly intractable job of finding an English transposition for the Odes of Pindar. There are major theoretic texts in this first phase: Leonardo Bruni’s De interpretatione recta of c. 1420, for example, and Pierre Daniel huet’s De optimo genere interpretandi, published in Paris in 1680. Huet’s treatise is, in fact, one of the fullest, most sensible accounts ever given of the nature and problems of translation. Nevertheless, the main characteristic of this first period is that of immediate empirical focus.
  This epoch of primary statement and technical notation may be said to end with Alexander Fraser Tytler’s Essay on the Principles of Translation issued in London in 1792, and with Friedrich Schleiermacher’s decisive essay ueber dieverschiedenen methoden des Uebersetzens of 1813. This second stage is one of theory and hermeneutic inquiry. The question of the nature of translation is posed within the more general framework of theories of language and mind. The topic acquires a vocabulary, a methodological status of its own, away from the demands and singularities of a given text. The hermeneutic approach – i. e. the investigation of what it means to ‘understand’ a piece of oral or written speech, and the attempt to diagnose this process in terms of a general model of meaning – was initiated by Schleiermacher and taken up by A. W. Schlegel and Humboldt. It gives the subject of translation a frankly philosophic aspect. The interchange between theory and practical need continued, of course. We owe to it many of the most telling reports on the activity of the translator and on relations between languages. These include texts by Goethe, Schopenhauer, Matthew Arnold, Paul Valery, Ezra Pound, I. A. Richards, Benedetto Croce, Walter Benjamin, and Ortega y Gasset. This age of philosohpic-poetic theory and definition –there is now a historiography of translation – extends to Valery larbaud’s inspired but unsystematic Sous l’invocation de Saint Jerome of 1946.
  After that we are fully in the modern current.
  1.Read the following two books:
  陈福康,1992,《中国译学理论史稿》,上海外语教育出版社。
  马祖毅,1998,《中国翻译简史》,中国对外翻译出版公司。
  2.Read the paper: Nida, E.A. 1989. “Theories of Translation.” Waiguoyu. (1989) No.6: 2—9

小编工资已与此挂钩!一一分钱!求打赏↓ ↓ ↓

如果你喜欢本文章,请赐赏:

已赐赏的人
最新评论(共0条)评论一句