2. 考研
  3. In the appreciation of a work of art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful. Not only was any refer

In the appreciation of a work of art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful. Not only was any refer

admin2019-03-20  60
问题     In the appreciation of a work of art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful. Not only was any reference to a certain public or its representatives misleading, but even the concept of an "ideal" receiver is detrimental in the theoretical consideration of art, since all it posits is the existence and nature of man as such. Art, in the same way, posits man’s physical and spiritual existence, but in none of its works is it concerned with his response. No poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, no symphony for listener.
    Is a translation meant for readers who do not understand the original? This would seem to explain adequately the divergence of their standing in the realm of art. Moreover, it seems to be the only conceivable reason for saying "the same thing" repeatedly. For what does a literary work "say"? What does it communicate? It "tells" very little to those who understand it. Its essential quality is not statement or the imparting of information. Yet any translation which intends to perform a transmitting function cannot transmit anything but information—hence, something inessential. This is the hallmark of bad translations. But do we not generally regard as the essential substance of a literary work what it contains in addition to information—as even a poor translator will admit—the unfathomable, the mysterious, the "poetic", something that a translator can reproduce only if he is also a poet? This, actually, is the cause of another characteristic of inferior translation. This will be true whenever a translation undertakes to serve the reader. However, if it were intended for the reader, the same would have to apply to the original. If the original does not exist for the reader’s sake, how could the translation he understood on the basis of this premise? (309 words)
选项
答案 欣赏艺术作品或艺术形式时，顾及受众从来都没有什么益处。不仅谈及特定公众或其代表人物会对人产生误导，甚至连“理想”受众这一概念在艺术的理论探讨中也是有害无益，因为这需要以这样的人存在且具有如此本质的假设为前提。同样，艺术也以人的肉体和精神存在为前提，然而在任何一件艺术品中，艺术从未关心过人对它有何反应。诗并非为读者而赋，画绝非为观者而作，交响乐也非为听众而谱。 那么，译作是为那些不懂原作的人存在的吗?这个问题似乎充分解释了关于读者在艺术领域的地位分歧。此外，这也成为“同样的话”重复说的唯一可以理解的原因。一部文学作品在“说”什么?它在传达什么?对那些领会它的人而言，它几乎什么也没“说”。文学作品的本质特征并非陈述事实或传递信息。任何旨在执行传播功能的译作除了信息外并未传达任何本质的东西。这也是拙劣译文的特征。然而，就连拙劣的译者也承认，信息之外，文学作品中的那种深不可测、神秘和“诗意”才是我们普遍认为的文学作品的本质。而只有译者本身也是诗人，才能再现这样的本质。而这事实上又引出了拙劣译作的另一个特征。只要译作意在迎合读者，这个特征便成立。倘若原作为读者而作，那么这样的评断对于原作同样适用。而如果原作并非为读者而作，那我们又怎么理解不为读者而存在的译作呢?
解析     本文选自犹太学者本雅明的《译者的任务》一文。本雅明全名为瓦尔特.本迪克斯.舍恩弗里斯.本雅明(Walter Bendix Schoenflies Benjamin)，他是德国犹太学者、作家、哲学家，被一些人称为“欧洲最后一位文人”。其代表作有《单向街》《发达资本主义时代的抒情诗人》等。在这篇文章中，作者充分展示了哲学家的思维，从辩证的角度分析了翻译是否应为读者存在，探讨了译者在文学领域的位置，对于翻译人员而言有很大的学习价值。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/4ofa777K
本试题收录于： 翻译硕士（英语翻译基础）题库专业硕士分类
0

翻译硕士（英语翻译基础）

专业硕士

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)