ideology and translaitonWord格式文档下载.docx
- 文档编号:18799804
- 上传时间:2023-01-01
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:10
- 大小:26.67KB
ideology and translaitonWord格式文档下载.docx
《ideology and translaitonWord格式文档下载.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《ideology and translaitonWord格式文档下载.docx(10页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
behrouz_karoubi@
多年来,人们将翻译看成是原作的衍生物和复制品,而将译者看成是用一种语言编码取代另一种语言编码的机械的工具,译者的自主权过去乃至现在始终受到那些将译者看成“除了模仿主人而别无选择的猴子”的人的质疑(Leppihalme1997:
19)。
但是近年来,受后结构主义主义和功能主义的影响,翻译研究关注的焦点已经转移到译者中介和主体性问题上,创造性、(绝对)等值以及作者凌驾于译者等观点受到学界的严重质疑。
Bassnett(1996)认为,有必要对译者的角色进行重新评估,分析在语言转换过程中译者的介入。
她认为,“如果考虑一个文本在没有掺杂的情况下通过有用的透明过滤,译本就可以被看做是一个过程,在此过程中介入发挥了关键作用”(1996:
22)。
Á
lvarez和Vidal(1996)认为,我们只有认识到翻译过程的复杂性与避免简单地将翻译看成一个从一种语言到另一种语言的词语转换过程,才能认识到翻译背后的意识形态的重要性。
两位学者认为,在译者的每一个决策(省略什么、添加什么、选择什么词语、如何排列词语)背后,“都有一个自觉的行为,而这个行为反映了译者的个人经历和社会政治背景。
换言之,这个自觉的行为反映了译者的文化[和意识形态]”(1996:
5)
Theexerciseofideologyintranslationisasoldasthehistoryoftranslationitself.AccordingtoFawcett(1998),‘throughoutthecenturies,individualsandinstitutionsappliedtheirparticularbeliefstotheproductionofcertaineffectintranslation’(p.107).Heclaimsthat‘anideologicalapproachtotranslationcanbefoundinsomeoftheearliestexamplesoftranslationknowntous’(p.106).Nevertheless,thelinguistics-orientedapproachestotranslationstudieshavefailedtoaddresstheconceptofideologythroughyearsoftheirprevalence,becausesuchapproachesarelimitedtotheirscientificmodelsforresearchandtheempiricaldatatheycollect,sothat‘theyremainreluctanttotakeintoaccountthesocialvalues[andideologies]thatenterintotranslatingaswellasthestudyofit’(Venuti,1998a:
1).Thedeficiencyofoldlinguistics-basedapproaches–which‘aremainlydescriptivestudiesfocusingontextualforms’(Calzada-Pé
rez,2003:
8)–inaccountingforsocialvaluesintranslationandotheraspectsoflanguageuseresultedindevelopinganewtrendofresearchcalledCriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA)‘whoseprimaryaimistoexposetheideologicalforcesthatunderliecommunicativeexchanges[liketranslating]’(Calzada-Pé
2).AccordingtoCDAadvocates,alllanguageuse,includingtranslation,isideologicalandthismeansthattranslationisalwaysasiteforideologicalencounters(p.2).Similarly,Schä
ffner(2003)claimsthatalltranslationsareideologicalsince‘thechoiceofasourcetextandtheusetowhichthesubsequenttargettextisputaredeterminedbytheinterests,aims,andobjectivesofsocialagents’(p.23).SheevidentlyoptsforvanDijk’sdefinitionforideologyas‘basicsystemsofsharedsocialrepresentationsthatmaycontrolmorespecificgroupbeliefs’(vanDijk,1996:
7).However,thereareaprofusionofdiversedefinitionsofideologydefiningthetermfromdifferentperspectives–amongstthemisvanDijk’sdefinition–someofwhicharedeemednecessarytobeoverviewedhere.
Definitionsofideology
Theterm‘ideology’hasbeenalwaysaccompaniedbyitspoliticalconnotationasitisevidentinitsdictionarydefinitionas‘asystemofideasandideals,especiallyonewhichformsthebasisofeconomicorpoliticaltheoryandpolicy’(TheNewOxfordDictionaryofEnglish).TranslationscholarswhoslantinfavorofthepoliticaldefinitionsofideologymainlybelievethattranslatingitselfisapoliticalactasTahir-Gü
rç
ağlar(2003:
113)argues,‘Translationispoliticalbecause,bothasactivityandproduct,itdisplaysprocessofnegotiationamongdifferentagents.Onmicro-level,theseagentsaretranslators,authors,critics,publishers,editors,andreaders’.UndertheinfluenceofMarxwhodefinesideologyasactionwithoutknowledge(falseconsciousness),ideologyissometimesdefinedinitsnegativepoliticalsenseas‘asystemofwrong,false,distortedorotherwisemisguidedbeliefs’(vanDijk,qtdinCalzada-Pé
3).Initsmoreconstructivesense,MarxistslikeLenindefineSocialistideologyas‘aforcethatencouragesrevolutionaryconsciousnessandfostersprogress’(Calzada-Pé
4).AccordingtoCalzada-Pé
rez(ibid.),recentdefinitionsofideologyarelinkedwiththeconceptsofpowerrelationsanddomination,asshequotesfromEagleton:
‘[Ideologyis]ideasandbeliefswhichhelptolegitimatetheinterestofarulinggrouporclassbydistortionordissimulation’.Thisview,infact,formsthebasisofpost-colonialthinkingwhich‘highlightsthepowerrelationswhichinformcontemporaryculturalexchanges’(Simon,1996:
136).However,Calzada-Pé
rez(2003)arguesthatsometimesideologyisviewedinmorepositivesense‘asavehicletopromoteorlegitimateinterestsofaparticularsocialgroup(ratherthanameanstodestroycontenders)’(p.5).
Scholarsinthefieldoflanguage-related,culturalandtranslationstudies,however,oftentendtoextendtheconceptofideologybeyondpoliticalsphereanddefineitinaratherpoliticallyneutralizedsenseas‘asetofideas,whichorganizeourlivesandhelpusunderstandtherelationtoourenvironment’(Calzada-Pé
5).Inmostpartsofthecurrentpaper,nevertheless,thewriteroptsforthedefinitionproposedbyvanDijk(1996:
7)forideologyasaframeworkthatis‘assumedtospecificallyorganizeandmonitoroneformofsociallysharedmentalrepresentation,inotherwords,theorganizedevaluativebeliefs—traditionallycalled'
attitudes'
—sharedbysocialgroups’.
Positionofideology
Theideologyoftranslationcouldbetracedinbothprocessandproductoftranslationwhichare,however,closelyinterdependent.Theideologyofatranslation,accordingtoTymoczko(2003),willbeacombinationofthecontentofthesourcetextandthevariousspeechactsrepresentedinthesourcetextrelevanttothesourcecontext,layeredtogetherwiththerepresentationofthecontent,itsrelevancetothereceptoraudience,andthevariousspeechactsofthetranslationitselfaddressingthetargetcontext,aswellasresonanceanddiscrepanciesbetweenthesetwo‘utterances’.However,shefurtherexplainsthat‘theideologyoftranslationresidesnotsimplyinthetexttranslated,butinthevoicingandstanceofthetranslator,andinitsrelevancetothereceivingaudience’(pp.182–83).Schä
ffner(2003)explains:
Ideologicalaspectcan[…]bedeterminedwithinatextitself,bothatthelexicallevel(reflected,forexample,inthedeliberatechoiceoravoidanceofaparticularword[…])andthegrammaticallevel(forexample,useofpassivestructurestoavoidanexpressionofagency).Ideologicalaspectscanbemoreorlessobviousintexts,dependingonthetopicofatext,itsgenreandcommunicativepurposes.(p.23)
Ideologicalaspectscanalsobeexaminedintheprocessoftextproduction(translating)andtheroleofthetranslatorasatargettextproduceraswellasasourcetextinterpreter.Theseaspectsalongwithtwomajorinfluencingschoolsofpost-structuralismandfunctionalismwillbefurtherexplainedindetailsinthefollowingparagraphs.
Ideologyandthetranslatorasareaderofthesourcetext:
Poststructuralism
AccordingtoVenuti(1992:
6),poststructuralistthinkerslikeDerridaanddeMan,mainlyundertheinfluenceofBenjamin’sworks,explodethebinaryoppositionbetweenoriginalandtranslationwhichcausestranslatorstobeinvisible.Beforetheemergenceofpoststructuralism,structuralistslikeSaussure,definedlanguageasthescientificallyexaminableworldofsymbolsconstitutingthelinguisticsystemandsocialstructurewithinwhichtheindividualissociallyshaped.Thestructuralistsbelievedthat‘languageisconstructedasasystemofsigns,eachsignbeingtheresultofconventionalrelationbetweenwordandmeaning,betweenasignifier(asoundorsound-image)andasignified(thereferent,orconceptrepresentedbythesignifier)’(Roman,2002:
309).Later,Barthes,anearlypoststructuralist,claimedthat‘signifiersandsingnifiedsarenotfixed,unchangeable,but,onthecontrary,canmakethesignitselfsignifyingmorecomplexmythicalsignsasintricatesignifiersoftheorderofmyth’(Roman,2002:
310).Thisshiftofideafromstructuralismtowardpoststructuralismresultedinextremerevisionsindifferentdomainsoflanguage,forexample,developingof‘thedeathofauthor’thinkingwhichlaterfounditswayintoTranslationStudies.Frominstabilityofthesignifiersandsignifieds,Barthesconcludesthatreadingtextsintermsofauthorialintentionorwhatwethinktheauthormeantbysuchandsuchastatement,andreferringthesourceofmeaningandauthorityofatextbacktoitsauthor(asthecreatorofthattext)isnomoreacceptable(Royle,2003:
7).Barthesarguesthat‘sincewritersonlywritewithinasystemoflanguageinwhichparticularizedauthorsarebornandshaped,textscannotbethoughtofintermsoftheirauthor’sintentions,butonlyinrelationshipwithothertexts:
inintertextuality’(Roman,2002:
311).Intheabsenceoftheauthor,Barthesexplains,thereaders(atranslatorcouldbeoneofthem)interprettextsbysettingthemagainsttheirbackdropofknownwordsandphrases,existingstatements,familiarconventions,anteriortexts,or,inotherwords,theirgeneralknowledgewhichisideological;
andthemeaningofatextbecomeswhatindividualreadersextractfromit,notwhatasupremeAuthorputin.(Hermans,1999:
69)‘“ThebirthofthereadermustbeatthecostofthedeathoftheAuthor”,Barthesbravelydeclares’(ibid).
Derrida,anotherpoststructuralist,drawsattentionfromthesignifiedstothechainofsignifiers,asRoman(2002)explains:
DerridatakesthestructureofsignfromSaussure,buttransformsitintoafluidentity,wherebymeaningandwritingconsistsolelyinsignifiers.Signifiersreferonlytoeachotherandmeaningbecomesunstablesinceanydeferraltoyetanothersignifierimpliesadifferenceinanendlesschainofsignification.ThisisthemeaningoftheFrenchtermdiffé
rence(fromtheFrenchverbdiffé
rer,withitspolysemantics
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- ideology and translaiton
![提示](https://static.bdocx.com/images/bang_tan.gif)