-
Contemporary translation theories
By Edwin Gentzler
1 The North American Translation
Workshop
In many academic circles in
North America, literary translation is still
considered secondary
activity,
mechanical
rather
than
creative,
neither
worthy
of
serious
critical
attention
nor
of
general interest to the public.
Translators, too, frequently lament the fact that
there is no market
foe
their
work
and
that
what
does
get
published
is
immediately
relegated
to
the
margins
of
academic
investigation.
Yet,
a
closer
analysis
of
the
developments
over
the
last
four
decades
reveals that in some
circles literary translation has been drawing
increasing public and academic
interest.
In the early
sixties, there were no translation workshops at
institutions of higher learning in
the
United States. Translation was a marginal activity
at best, not considered by academia as a
proper field of study in the university
system. In his essay
Keeley,
director
of
translation
workshops
first
at
Iowa
and
later
at
Princeton,
wrote,
In
1963
there was no established and continuing
public forum for the purpose: no translation
centres, no
associations of literary
translator as far as know, no publications devoted
primarily to translations,
translators,
and
their
continuing
problems
1981:11).
In
this
environment,
Paul
Engle,
Director of the
Writers' Workshop at the University of Iowa, gave
the first heave; arguing that
creative
writing
knows
no
national
boundaries,
he
expanded
the
Creative
Writing
Program
to
include
international
writers.
In
1964
Engle
hires
a
full-time
director
for
what
was
the
first
translation
workshop
in
the
United
Stated
and
began
offering
academic
credit
for
literary
translations.
The
following
year
the
Ford
Foundation
conferred
a
$$150,000
grant
on
the
University
of Texas at Austin toward the establishment of the
National Translation Center. Also
in
1965,
the
first
issue
of
Modern
Poetry
in
Translation,
edited
by
Ted
Hughes
and
Daniel
Weissbort, was published, providing
literary translators a place for their creative
work. In 1968,
the National Translation
Center published the first issue of Delos, a
journal devoted to the history
as
well
as
the
aesthetics
of
translation
had
established
a
place,
albeit
a
small
one,
in
the
production of American
culture.
The process of
growth and acceptance continued in the seventies.
Soon translation courses
and workshops
were being offered at several universities-Yale,
Princeton, Columbia, Iowa, Texas,
and
State University of New York, Binghamton among
them. Advanced degrees were conferred
upon students for creative, historical,
and theoretical work in the field of literary
translation. This,
in turn, led to the
establishment of the professional organization
American Literary Translators
Association(ALTA) in
the
late seventies
as well as the founding
of the journal
Translation for
that organization. By 1977, the United
States government lent its authority to this
process with
the establishment of the
National Endowment of the Humanities grants
specifically for literary
translation.
For
a
while
in
the
late
seventies
and
early
eighties,
it
looked
as
if
the
translation
workshop would
follow the path of creative writing, also
considered at one time a non-academic
field, and soon be offered at as many
schools as had writing workshops.
But
despite the increase in translation activity and
its gaining of limited institutional support
in
the
sixties
and
seventies,
the
process
of
growth
plateaued.
Many
assumptions
about
the
secondary status of the field remained.
Today, while many universities offer advanced
degrees in
creative writing,
comparatively few offer academic credit for
literary translation. One reason is
surely
the
monolinguistic
nature
of
the
culture.
Howerer,
such
typecasting
is
also
due
to
socio-economic motives: labeling
translations as derivative serves to reinforce an
existing status
quo, one that places
primary emphasis not on the process but on the
pursuit and consumption of
meaning.
The
activity
of
translation
represents
a
process
antithetical
to
certain
reigning literary
beliefs, hence its relegation to marginal status
within educational and economic
institutions and its position in this
society as part of a counter-cultural movement.
Indeed,
during
the
sixties
and
early
seventies,
the
practice
of
literary
translation
became
heavily
in
representations
of
alternate
value
systems
and
views
of
reality.
While
not
taken
seriously
by
academics,
sales
of
translated
literary
texts
enjoyed
unprecedented
highs
on
the
open market. Perhaps no one articulated
the political urgency and popular attraction of
literary
translations during this
period better than Ted Huges:
That boom
in the popular sales of translated modern poetry
was without precedent. Though
it
reflected
only
one
aspect
of
the
wave
of
mingled
energies
that
galvanized
those
years
with
such extremes, it was fed by almost all
of them-Buddhism, the mass craze of Hippie
ideology,
the
revolt
of
the
young,
the
Pop
music
of
the
Beatles
and
their
generation...
That
historical
moment might well
be seen as...an unfolding from inwards, a
millennial change in the Industrial
West's view of reality. (Hughes.
1983:9)
For
Hughes,
the
translation
boom
of
the
sixties
was
simply
one
aspect
of
a
generational
movement
that
articulated
itself
in
a
variety
of
media.
While
his
view
of
translation
as
anti-establish may not have been true
of all translation during this period, it did hold
true for a
large and influential group
of contemporary American poets actively
translating at the time:
Zdynas's
notes
seem
characteristic
of
prevailing
assumptions
regarding
the
teaching
of
translation in the United States. He
shares the assumption that creative writing cannot
be taught,
that creative talent is
something one is born with. Such a belief plagued
creative writing for years
before
it
was
accepted
as
an
university
discipline.
Secondly,
Zdanys
reveals
a
prejudice
for
teaching students how to enjoy the
original poem, one that is in keeping with New
Critical tenets.
His conclusion is not
altogether surprising-although he argues against
conventional wisdom that
translation
can be taught at the university, he does it not
for reasons Ted Hughes suggested-that it
may
lead
to
a
change
in
the
West
views
reality-but
because
it
reinforces
a
fairly
conservative
humanistic
ideology.
This
is
nowhere
better
revealed
than
in
a
contradiction
within
the
essay
regarding
the
theoretical
basis
of
the
course.
On
the
one
hand,
Zdynas
hopes
the
course
will
attract
students
interested in
theoretical
question;
on the other hand, he
argues
that
he himself
opposes the
restraints of
Zdanys says that
the field. Although, ironically, Yale
itself houses numerous such critics who are in
fact part of the
same department (a
special interdepartmental program) in which the
course was offered.
Zdanys clearly
finds translation a subjective activity, subsuming
translation under the larger
goal of
interpreting literature. His argument that the
study of translation can lead to a qualitative
understanding
reveals
the
humanistic
agenda.
His
goal
is
more
clearly
disclosed
in
a
section of the same essay in which he
talks about the presence of a female linguistics
students
who,
despite
Zdany's
misgivings
about
what
she
might
contribute
to
the
seminar,
actually brought a
Zdanyd
contradicts
his
stated
premise-a
rejection
of
predetermined
aesthetic
theories-when
he
concludes
that
although
her
approach
was
a
addition
to
the
course,
he
hopes
that
he
her
during
the
course.
The
lingering
question
is
her
to
what?
Zdynas's
notes
seem
characteristic
of
prevailing
assumptions
regarding
the
teaching
of
translation in the United States. He
shares the assumption that creative writing cannot
be taught,
that creative talent is
something one is born with. Such a belief plagued
creative writing for years
before
it
was
accepted
as
an
university
discipline.
Secondly,
Zdanys
reveals
a
prejudice
for
teaching students how to enjoy the
original poem, one that is in keeping with New
Critical tenets.
His conclusion is not
altogether surprising-although he argues against
conventional wisdom that
translation
can be taught at the university, he does it not
for reason Ted Hughes suggested- that it
may
lead
to
a
change
in
the
way
the
West
views
reality-
but
because
it
reinforces
a
fairy
conservative
humanistic ideology. This is nowhere better
revealed than in a contradiction within
the essay regarding the theoretical
basis of the course. On the one hand, Zdynas hopes
the course
will attract students
interested in theoretical; on the hand, he argue
that he himself opposes the
restraints
of
that
essay
unfortunately
cannot
consider
the
contrition
of
deconstruction
to
the
field,
although, ironically,
Yale
itself houses numerous such critics who
are in
fact part of the same
department (a special interdepartmental
program) in which the course was offered.
Zdanys clearly finds
translation a subjective activity, subsuming
translation under the larger
goal of
interpreting literature. His argument that the
study of translation can lead to a qualitative
understanding
reveals
the
humanistic
agenda.
His
goal
is
more
clearly
disclosed
in
a
section of the same essay
in
which he talks
about
the presence of a female linguistics
student
who,
despite
Zdanys's
misgivings
about
what
she
might
contribute
to
the
seminar,
actually brought a
Zdanys
contradicts
his
stated
premise-a
rejection
of
predetermined
aesthetic
theories-when
he
concludes
that
although
her
approach
was
a
addition
to
the
course,
he
hopes
that
he
her
during
the
course.
The
lingering
question
is
her
to
what?
That
unarticulated
with the North American
translation workshop premise tend to claim that
their approach is not
theoretically
preconditioned; this chapter attempts to formulate
the non-dit present in their works,
to
analyze
those
underlying
assumptions,
and
to
show
how
they
either
reinforce
the
existing
literary
edifices
or
offer
a
counterclaim
that
deserves
further
consideration.
Through
this
approach,
I
hope
to
show
that
the
translation
workshop
approach
actually
does
both,
i.e.,
simultaneously reinforces and subverts,
and that this dual activity, necessarily operative
because
of the methodology, is in
itself a contribution to the ongoing investigation
of not only translation
phenomena, but
of language in general.
2
Frederic Will: The paradox of translation
While
Richards's
work
in
translation
might
be
charactererized
as
an
extension
of
his
literary
criticism,
Frederic
Will's
literary
theory-
initially
not
unlike
Richards's-
has
changed
much because of his
involvement in translation. Will's work in
translation theory is symptomatic
of
that of many adherents of the American workshop
approach. Will first taught Classics at the
University
of
Texas,
where
he
founded
the
journal
Arion
with
William
Arrowsmith.
He
then
moved to the forefront
in translation by accepting the directorship of
the translation workshop at
the
University of Iowa in 1964. In 1965, he founded
Micromegas, a journal devoted to literary
translation,
each
issue
focused
on
the
poetry
of
a
different
country.
His
first
theoretical
text
Litersture
Inside
Out,
published
in
1966,
raised
questions
about
naming
and
meaning
and
indirectly
suggests
that
translation
can
be
viewed
as
a
form
of
naming,
fiction-making,
and
knowing(Will,1966:15). His next book,
The Knife in the Stone, published in 1973, dealt
directly
with the practice of
translation; and parts of it rearticulated his
workshop experience at Iowa.
Although Will's early text did not
specifically address translation problems, certain
relevant
theoretical assumptions are
visible. Will's project picks up where Richards's
left off: he uses New
Critical
beliefs
to
try
to
reconcile
recent
critical
theories.
Will's
first
essay
Naming
to
Fiction Making
Literature
Inside Out appears to agree with a theory
of cultural relativism.
Holding that different
languages construct
separate
realities and that what
any particular
word
refers
to
cannot
be
determined
precisely,Will
calls
into
question
translation
theories
based
on
reference
to
a
universal
objective
reality.
Reality
can
only
be
learned,
he
argues,
through
the
names
we
give
it,
and
so
,
to
a
certain
degree,
language
is
the
creator
of
reality.
Will
also
distances himself from
theories that posit a notion of univeral themes or
motifs, theories which
do not view
symbol-making as part of a human activity. At the
same time, however, Will argues
that
knowledge
of
essence
is
possible:
core
of
the
self,
the
theme
of
its
efforts,
is
love,
which
is
a
power
unto
itself
and
can
bring
the
outer
reality
the
focus
of
consciousness
power
to
name
we
would
have
remained
savages.
Language,
thus,
he
argues,
takes
on
our
character,
out rhythm, our desires, and reveals our true
inner selves. Will continues to say that
The
self's
effort,
in
naming,
is
not
mere
verbal
play
but
is
part
of
its
overall
effort
to
translate the outer into the human.
This situation follows from the unity of the self.
In such unity
the
expression
of
a
core-
movement,
the
self,
all
bear
the
character
of
that
movement.
Each
expression bears the core's
character.(Will,1966:13 )
As opposed to
an objective outer reality that can be translated
across cultures, Will posits a
central
common core of human experience and
emotions
that can overcome
the indeterminate
nature of language
and bring that
naming does not
necessarily give us any insight regarding outside
reality(that to which language
refers),
but it does help us to better know our inner
selves.
The power of this inner
understanding and knowledge is
further
elaborated in
the second
essay,
Literature, according
to Will, also
tenet of the unity of the
original text is also adopted; Will argues that a
work of literature
deeply unified
verbal event occurring in a
self.
important to Pound, are merged
with the whole for Will, and
in the
literary work,
contextual, symbolic,
interpretative, and inner aural and visual
overtones-
1966:18).
Will's
agenda,
like
Richards'
s,
is
fundamentally
didactic,
not
just
in
terms
of
developing competent literary critics,
but also in terms of a larger, humanistic goal.
Literature,
according
to
Will
not
only
us
the
power
to
understand,
but
also
serves
as
a
means
to
understand
a
higher
metaphysical
power.
Will
clearly
believes
that
power
to
understand
something is 'knowledge' of
something.
to know objective reality. He
concludes with the rhetorical question,
even about the natural world or about
God, except the power to understand
them?
4 ). Literary works present us
with models by which we can
that we
experience as a
deepens and enriches
our lives as well as gives us a better
understanding of our own true selves.
Will then reexamines his own theory
after his experience in the translation workshop
at the
University of Iowa and after
have after having read Pound. Although his next
theoretical text,
The Knife in the
Stone, retain metaphysical concepts, many of his
romantic notion of love and
humanistic
believes
in
the power of the
heart dissipate. His
concept
of text
becomes less of a
unified and coherent whole; instead it
is seen as being interwoven with
reality, subject to use,
change,
and
variable
interpretations.
In
The
Knife
in
the
Stone,
Will
uses
translation
as
the
brings
to
the
project:
The
inter-translatibility
of
languages
is
the
firmest
testing
ground,
and
demonstration
ground,
for
the
existence
of
a
single
ideal
body
of
literature.
If
there
is
any
meaning, to the ideal of such a body,
it will show itself through as effort to equate
literature in
one language with
literature in another,(Will,1973;42)
Again, the opposition includes those
who are skeptical about the possibility of
translation,
those
who
question
concepts
of
literariness,
and
those
who
find
the
concept
of
referentiality
problematic. Will names Sartre and
Mead, whose theories posit inner
of
the
universal
core
of
human
experience,
but
are,
in
Will's
terminology,
and
constructed
respec
tively.
Though
the
test
of
translation,
Will
intends
disprove
the
literature-
does,
in
fact,
enjoy
argument,
when put
to the
test,
dose
not
confirm
his
initial
presuppositions,
but
causes
him
to
alter
his
conception
of
translation in a manner that may be of
interest to contemporary theory.
The change in the logic of Will's
argument is most apparent in the final essay of
The Knife
in
the
stone,
called
paradoxically
Traitor
a
play
on
the
Italian
aphorism
tradutore,
traditore.
Briefly, the article reviews his experience
teaching at Iowa. In the course of the activity
of actual translation, it became clear
to Will that what he was translating had less to
do with the
meaning of the text and
more with the energy of the expression, how
meaning was expressed in
language. He
found himself using a kind of Poundian theory. The
cultural relativity thesis that
once
was so problematical is adapted by turning it back
in on itself, not to oppose his practice,
but
to
contribute
as
an equally
always present
part. Since language is
indeterminate, since we
never have access to be the meaning
behind specific language, all the more reason to
be free and
trust not what language
says but what the language does. The traditional
notion of translation to
fall
into
categories
of
equivalences
and
of
of
the
original.
What
Will
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇：自考本科 英语二
下一篇：浅析《推销员之死》中的美国梦