翻譯模因論

內(nèi)容概要

“模因”承載著本質(zhì)性的文化特征，并傳播文化?！斗g模因論——翻譯理論中的思想傳播》把“模因”作為翻譯理論中的基本概念單位，結(jié)合波普爾關(guān)于知識(shí)進(jìn)化的圖式，對(duì)翻譯規(guī)范和策略進(jìn)行描述性研究，把不同歷史時(shí)期的重要翻譯理論和翻譯思想貫穿起來(lái)，建立了系統(tǒng)的翻譯理論框架。
《翻譯模因論——翻譯理論中的思想傳播》由安德魯·切斯特曼編著。

作者簡(jiǎn)介

翻譯研究領(lǐng)域聲名卓著的學(xué)者，原芬蘭赫爾辛基大學(xué)現(xiàn)代語(yǔ)言學(xué)系教授，著有《對(duì)比功能分析》(ContrastiveFunctional
Analysis)、《論確定性——特別是關(guān)于英語(yǔ)和芬蘭語(yǔ)》(On Deft—niterless：A Study with
Special Refer—ence幻English and Finnish)等專(zhuān)著，發(fā)表過(guò)幾十篇富有創(chuàng)見(jiàn)的論文。

書(shū)籍目錄

Preface
CHAPTER 1．Survival machines for memes
 1．1 Introducing memes
 1．2 Five tralation SHpe：rmemes
 1．3 The lOCUS ofmemes
 1．4 A Popperian meme
CHAPTER 2．The evolution of tralation memes
 2．1 Words
 2．2 The Word ofGod
 2．3 Rhetoric
 2．4 Logos
 2．5 Linguistic science
 2．6 Communication
 2．7 Target
 2．8 Cognition
 2．9 Theory in the current meme·pool
 2．10 What next?
 2．1l Review
CHAPTER 3．From memes to norms
 3．1 Normative VS．prescriptive
 3．2 Normtheory
 3．3 Norms oflanguage
 3．4 What counts as a tralation?
 3．5 Tralation norms
 3．6 General tralation laws and normative laws
 3．7 Norms as cotraints
 3．8 On expectancy noH in English
 3．9 Implicatio
CHAPTER 4．Tralation strategies
 4．1 General characteristics of strategies
 4．2 A classification
 4．3 Motivation
CHAPTER 5．Tralation as theory
 5．1 Tentative Theory．Error Elimination and tralational competence
 5．2 Retrospective assessment
 5．3 Prospective assessment
 5．4 Lateral assessment
 5．5 Introspective assessment
 5．6 Pedagogical assessment
 5．7 Mind the gap!
CHAPTER 6．The development of tralational competence
 6．1 Stages of expertise
 6．2 The significance of memes
 6．3 Teaching strategies
 6．4 Ontogenetic=phylogenetic?
 6．5 Bootstraps
CHAPTER 7．On tralation ethics
 7．1 Background issues
 7．2 Norms．values and actio
 7．3 Clarity
 7．4 Truth
 7．5 Trust
 7．6 Undetanding
 7．7 The Tralator’S Charter
 7．8 Emancipatory tralation
Epilogue
Appendix
References
Author index
Subject index

章節(jié)摘錄

　　Interestingly， this law seems to run counter to the law of interference: whereas interference points to the dominance of the source language， the law of growing standardization points to the dominance of the target language system at the expense of specifically source-text features. The two laws exert opposite pulls， and the translator can be swayed either way. The standardization law suggests that translators (at a certain level of competence， perhaps) tend to overreact to the risk of interference.　　Some manifestations of the standardization law are purely statistical， and readily suggest hypotheses that can be empirically tested. To take a simple example: the occurrence of many textual features approximately follows a statistically normal distribution， a bell curve.lf we plot the variation of sentence length in a text， for instance， we typically end up with a distribution showing a higher frequency of average-length sentences and a lower frequency of very short or very long ones. Such curves will of course vary somewhat depending on text-type. If the normal target-language distribution of this feature is then compared with its distribution in translated texts of the same type， we might hypothesize that various differences would emerge. Instead of a symmetrical bell curve the translations might show a skewed curve， showing an over-use of short or long sentences. But a more likely hypothesis is that we would find instances of "curve-hitching"， showing over-use of the central， average range， and under-use of the two extremes. The translator would thus be "playing safe"， making more use of the prototypical part of the range of distribution. Although the average value of the variable might be the same in the translated text and in target-language parallel texts， the translated text would manifest a smaller standard deviation. The result would be a kind of "rhetorical flattening" similar to that observed by Toury. (We shall return to related matters of translation assessment in chapter 5.)　　At a lower level of generality， any teacher of translation will be familiar with the typical tendencies of translator trainees at different levels， both regarding their translation products and their translation process. One aspect of the process that has received attention recently is trainees' use of dictionaries and reference works， as compared to the practice of experienced professionals (see e.g.Jaaskelainen 1989): professionals use a wider range of reference works， and rely less on bilingual dictionaries， for instance. All such observations and research pertain to descriptive translation laws.　　3.6.2 Normative laws　　Within these general translation laws I would like to posit the existence of a subset oflaws I will call normative translation laws. They are also descriptive， in accordance with the sense in which I am using "normative" throughout this book; however， they are not descriptive of the behaviour of all translators but only of some. They are only descriptive of the behaviour of competent professionals， of the same subset of all translators that is the source of professional norms. Normative laws， as thus understood， describe the behaviour of translators who conform to translation norms， and who actually set the professional norms.(Strictly speaking， of course， we are dealing with a continuum here， not an absolute distinction between "conforming" and "not conforming".)　　A simple hypothetical example willillustrate the difference between general translation laws and normative laws. Assume that，in a given culture at a given time， there exists a communicative norm to the effect that， in a given text-type，source-language culture-bound terms are expanded or explained in translation， rather than preserved to add local colour or the like. We might discover a general translation law which revealed that， say， 70% of all translators (in this culture etc.) do indeed tend to explain such terms，but 30% do not. The 700/o that do are thus following the norm. It may well be that the remaining 30%， by not conforming to this norm， expose themselves to criticism，if the opinion of their readers is that they should be conforming to it. But as we have seen， general translation laws are not sensitive to evaluative judgements， for they merely describe what is done， by good and less good translators alike.　　Alongside this generallaw， however， we might also discover that， of all the competent professional translators studied， as many as 99% followed the norm; indeed， this would be evidence for our taking it to be a norm in the first place. If supported by subsequent research， this would suggest the existence of a normative law: that is， a law describing the typical behaviour of competent professional translators， as opposed to all translators in the culture.　　Again， we are not really looking at a binary distinction here， between competent professionals and "other translators": I have set up such an opposition for expository reasons only. What we expect to find is a correlation between "acknowledged translational competence"， measured perhaps partly in years of experience， and the use of certain translation strategies such as，in this example，"explain culture-bound terms". It is partly by extrapolation from such an observed trend that we postulate the existence of the norm in question: good translators behave in such and such a way， which implies that they seem to follow guidelines of such and such a kind，i.e. norms.　　One definition of "good translators"， then， would be those who tend to follow normative laws，i.e. those who translate "like competent professionals".lf we then ask by what criteria these professionals are to be defined， the answer is: not on intrinsic grounds but on extrinsic ones. That is， translators belong to the subset of "competent professionals" if they are acknowledged to do so by other members of their culture (or perhaps， more specifically， by members who are themselves acknowledged by yet other members as having the ability to make this evaluation). In other words， translator competence (on this view) is defined socially， not linguistically， in the same way as we have earlier defined what counts as a translation in the first place. Power relationships in society are thus also involved，inevitably.　　……

編輯推薦

　　這套“國(guó)外翻譯研究叢書(shū)”的出版首先可以解決國(guó)內(nèi)翻譯教學(xué)原版參考書(shū)多年匱乏的困難，真可以說(shuō)是我國(guó)翻譯教學(xué)與理論研究的及時(shí)雨。這套叢書(shū)的價(jià)值還在于能大大促進(jìn)我國(guó)翻譯學(xué)科建設(shè)的發(fā)展。安德魯·切斯特曼編寫(xiě)的這本《翻譯模因論：翻譯理論中的思想傳播》是該系列中的一冊(cè)，適合從事相關(guān)研究工作的人員參考閱讀。

圖書(shū)封面

圖書(shū)標(biāo)簽Tags

無(wú)

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    翻譯模因論 PDF格式下載

---