“忠”还是“不忠”:翻译与改写的家族相似性
DOI:
CSTR:
作者:
作者单位:

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

基金项目:


“Faithfulness” or “Unfaithfulness”: the Family Resemblance of Translating and Rewriting
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    翻译标准之争持续至今,没有定论。从一开始的“忠实论”、“对等论”到后来的“读者反应论”,原文的主体地位逐渐削弱。人们意识到忠实原文很难做到,翻译和改写的界限开始模糊。再往后,解构主义翻译学派提出“作者‘死’了”,原文的主体地位彻底被颠覆,翻译根本无法还原原文,翻译和改写的界限更加模糊。根据维根斯坦家族相似性理论,翻译和改写同属创作范畴,是一个硬币的两面,具有家族相似性,很难彼此区分。因此,翻译也很难用“忠”与“不忠”的标准来衡量。

    Abstract:

    There has been no agreement so far as to what is the ultimate criterion of translation. The shift of our attention from the principle of equivalence to the principle of readers’ response indicates that the source text is no longer the only standard on the basis of which we make a final judgment on the target text. The school of deconstruction advocates that the source text has no absolute meaning and that faithfulness to the source text is impossible. Then arises the question whether translating is rewriting. According to the theory of family resemblance, translating and rewriting fall into the same category and the boundary between them is so fuzzy that they cannot be distinguished. Therefore, a translation cannot be simply measured by the term “faithfulness” or “unfaithfulness”.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

薛海滨.“忠”还是“不忠”:翻译与改写的家族相似性[J].上海理工大学学报(社科版),2012,34(2).

复制
分享
相关视频

文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:
  • 最后修改日期:
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2012-11-12
  • 出版日期:
文章二维码