| The history of translation studies shows very clearly how great it owes the debt to philosophy and what an important role the philosophic thinking plays in the development of translation studies from an object-oriented endeavor to a subject-oriented one. This dissertation begins with the introduction to the mutual relations between language, philosophy and translation, which functions as foundation for the whole research located in a context that starts from Enlightenment Philosophy and is followed by a thorough discussion of the main scholarly ideas of about twenty philosophers, including Humboldt, Schleiermacher, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida and etc., who have contributed to our understanding of the nature of language in general and that of translation in particular.In Chapter 1, "Translatability — the essentials of translation from the philosophical perspective", a brief introduction is first given to the history of integrating philosophy with translational thinking, which starts with exploring the questions of translatability. It then continues to examine the viewpoints of Aristotle, Augustine and some other thinkers on that issue, with a relative intensive discussion in terms of Humboldt's philosophical ideas on translation as well as on language.Since Understanding is both a core concept of Hermeneutics and a matter of primary importance for translation (as well), Hermeneutics is among the disciplines that have exerted the most significant and far-reaching impacts on translation studies. In Chapter 2, "Translating means understanding — Hermeneutic Views on Translation", we blend theory with practice to investigate three Hermeneuticians' thoughts on language and translation that have prevailed at different periods of time. Schleiermacher argues that avoiding misunderstanding is the principal task of Hermeneutics, for which he figures out two ways of textual reconstruction and offers two corresponding rules of interpretation — grammatical rules and psychological rules. His distinctions of two different ways of translating — the author-oriented and the reader-oriented — still have an important influence upon translation studies today. Heidegger takes translation as an ideological practice, through which he destructs the linguistic feathers on thought and returns language to its original shape. From his point of view, translation aims at revealing the nature of language rather than reproducing the writer's intention alone. According to him, one should discard his 'prejudice' so as to transfer into the represental form of textual meaning, letting language speak itself. Gadamer considers that the meaning of a text is open and it is different for different people and for different historic periods. He points out that 'prejudice', as a preconceived idea, is shaped in a particular history and tradition and is an indispensable base for understanding. The principles he lays for textualcomprehension, such as historicity, fusion of horizons and effective history, are frequently referred in modern translation studies.Although translation has a central core of linguistic activity, it belongs most properly to semiotics, the science that studies sign systems or structures, sign processes and sign functions. In Chapter 3, "Translation means semiotic transformation — Semiotic views on translation", we discuss the nature of language as a sign and the essentials of translation as a process of semiotic interpretation. Pierce, the founder of modern semiotics, defines "sign" as "something that stands for something in some respect or capacity" and claims that signs establish meaning only after relating other signs together. By emphasizing the importance of the role played by the relation between signs in meaning producing, Pierce extends the inquiry of a sign to a broader research of culture, history and society. In "On the Linguistic Aspect of Translation", Jacobson inherits Pierce's semiotic views, dishing out a famous tripartite division of translation: intralingual translation, interlingual translation and intersemiotic translation. He argues that translation is not replacement of different linguistic signs but transfer of total information that signs carry. Although he acknowledges that languages are to a certain extent different between each other, he declares language to be translatable, thinking that every sign can be translated by some more advanced more accurate ones. Benjamin's The Task of Translator may be one of the most difficult texts to read on translation. In this dissertation, we elaborate the classic text from four aspects touching upon linguistic philosophy, literary criticism, translation studies and theology. For Benjamin, translation is a means to aspire to "pure language". He regards a process of supplement of languages as taking place through translation because of the difference between source and target language. This inadequacy is in itself the source of an enrichment of the target language. Benjamin denies literary works should communicate information, emphasizing that literary translation does not relate to the textual meaning but to the language itself. He approves literal translation because he believes that literal translation can reveal the nature of mutual supplementation between languages as it will not hide the glory of the original language.Linguistic philosophy (also called Analytic philosophy), taking the philosophy of thoughts to be equated with the philosophy of language, studies language in order to make it more accurate to reflect the objective world, since language can not only express what we think but represent what we see as well. As for Linguistic philosophy, the concept of utmost concern is meaning, and meaning is also the core element of translation. Doubtlessly, every progress that linguistic philosophy had achieved would promote the progress of translation studies thereby.In Chapter 4, "Translating means translating meaning — views of Linguistic philosophy on translation", focus is on discussing linguistic thoughts of three masters of Linguistic philosophy and their profound influences upon translation theories. The formalists once compared arithmetic as a game played with mathematical symbols. Wittgenstein extends this game analogy to language as a whole and coins a term of Language-games to correspond to claims about the essence of language, through which he proposes a very famous idea, that is, to learn the meaning of a word is tolearn how to use it. With this inspiration, the focus of translation studies has been shifted from the internal structure of a text to a broad context. In an account of the meaning of an expression, one main factor is what the expression is used for, and this is the speech act aspect of language use. By studying how to do things with words, Austin puts forward Theory of Speech which puts language meaning into the exploration of speech in opposition to an account of meaning exclusively based on semantics. So, by now language is no longer a close system but becomes one of special modes of human action. Quine, in order to justify the indeterminacy of translation, lays out two linguistic experiments: "radical translation" i.e. translation of the language of a hitherto untouched people, and "translation manuals" that fit the totality of known speech disposition but are not compatible with each other.Deconstruction takes dismantlement as its staring-point, with language as its focus, translation as its method and reconstruction as its purpose. Its most significant contribution to translation studies lies in its ultimate aim of liberating translators and totally subverting some traditional concepts concerning the original writer and text. Chapter 5, "Translating means reconstructing — Deconstructionist Views on translation" introduces Foucault's three modes of episteme and their correspondent thoughts on translation. By claiming that the translation is the afterlife of the original text which survives through translating, Foucault dismantles the central position of the original text and proclaims the liberation of the translators. Derrida, the most representative deconstructionist, coins the neographism différance to deny any definite, determined and single meaning of a sign. He thinks that all language, in order to be language, generates meaning through the systemic movement of differences, in which translation displays the essentials of language. In his eyes, translation is not to reach the identity but to retain the differences because pursuing meaning is not a matter of 'revealing' some hidden presence that is already 'there' but relentless tracking through an always moving play of differences. In Venut's masterpiece of The Translator's Invisibility, he traces the history of translation from 16th century to the present time, displays how fluency prevailed over other translation strategies to shape the canon of foreign literatures in English, and investigates the cultural consequences of the domestic values which were simultaneously inscribed and masked in foreign texts during this period, From the stand of post-colonialism, he appeals for the replacement of 'domesticating translation' with 'foreignizing translation' so as to make the translator visible.The deconstructionist school in translation studies, with its power of inspiration, has somehow managed to shake off the traditional logo-centrism and has since attached more importance to the impact that culture and history have on translation and, in particular, to the interrelations between translation and politics, economy, social system and discourse power. Chapter 6, 'Translating means rewriting — Philosophic complex of multi-dimensional translation studies' discusses the Skopos Theory (or Skopostheorie), the Cultural Turn in translation Studies and Habermas' Communicative Act Theory. The Skopos theory is an approach to translation which reflects a general shift from predominantly linguistic and rather formal translation theories to a more functional and socio-culturally oriented concept of translation.Based on James' Pragmatism that an idea is true if the results of accepting it are good or satisfactory, the theory regards translation as an action and correspondingly concludes that a translation strategy is determined by its purpose. As a cross-culture communicative process, translation is greatly influenced by the intentions of its participants, such as the initiator, the commissioner, the writer, the translator and the receiver. As may be expected, the Cultural Turn in translation studies means the study of translation at the interface with culture, looking at translation from the cultural studies angle, therefore diverting translation studies away from purely linguistic analysis, and bringing it into meaningful contact with other disciplines. Nietzsche's Will of Power and Foucault's discourse power have been generally considered as among the major reasons behind the advent of the Cultural Turn in Translation Studies. If all knowledge is the representation of the will of power, as Nietzsche said, it is inevitable that translation is manipulated by the power: to translate means to conquer; to translate means to rewrite. In the kingdom of modern philosophy full of radical theories, Habermas' Communicative Act Theory sounds, comparatively speaking, moderate in tone, functioning, as it were, as an appropriate regulator in modern translation studies, since it draws on the strong points from other theories while keeping some distance from them."Philosophic Reflection upon Translation Studies in China" is added as a supplement to the dissertation for two reasons: one is for my personal concern and interests in the development of translation studies in China and the other is for such an understanding that Chinese philosophic thoughts on translation are both solid basis and priceless treasures for the construction of translation studies with Chinese characteristics. The added part starts with an exploration of a variety of views on "Ming (name or naming)" and "Yi (translating)" from Chinese ancient philosophers such as Confucius, Lao-tzu, Mencius, Xun-tzu, Chuang-tzu, Xun-tzu and etc. It continues to survey the translation of Buddhist scriptures, which provided a fertile ground for the practice and discussion of translation approaches affected, more or less, by Buddhist thoughts in China. In addition, a section is inserted to discuss Yan-fu's three desiderata for translation, namely Faithfulness, Smoothness and Elegance, frequently quoted as the summery of nearly-one-thousand-year sutra translation, and what is more, to inquire the correspondent ideology Yan Fu's translation principles entail. In the end, a brief examination is given of the views on translation from five modern philosophers, including Ai Si-qi, He Lin, Jin Yue-lin, Chen Kang and Feng You-lan, and their positive contribution to Chinese translation theories as a whole is evaluated. |
PDF Full Text Request