首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
There are two ways in which we can think of literary translation: as reproduction and as recreation. If we think of translation
There are two ways in which we can think of literary translation: as reproduction and as recreation. If we think of translation
admin
2010-07-19
44
问题
There are two ways in which we can think of literary translation: as reproduction and as recreation. If we think of translation as reproduction, it is a safe and harmless enough business: the translator is a literature processor into which the text to be translated is inserted and out of which it ought to emerge identical, but in another language.
But unfortunately the human mind is an imperfect machine, and the goal of precise interlinguistic message-transference is never-achieved; so the translator offers humble apologies for being capable of producing only a pale shadow of the original. Since all he is doing is copying another’s meanings from one language to another, he removes himself from sight so that the writer’s genius can shine as brightly as may be. To do this, he uses a neutral, conventionally literary language which ensures that the result will indeed be a pale shadow, in which it is impossible for anybody’s genius to shine.
Readers also regard the translator as a neutral meaning-conveyor, then attribute the mediocrity of the translation to the original author. Martin Amis, for example, declares that Don Quixote is unreadable, without stopping to think about the consequences of the fact that what he has read or not read is what a translator wrote, not what Cervantes wrote. If we regard literary translation like this, as message-transference, we have to conclude that before very long it will be carried out perfectly well by computers.
There are many pressures encouraging translators to accept this description of their work, apart from the fact that it is a scientific description and therefore must be right. Tradition is one such additional encouragement, because meaning-transference has been the dominant philosophy and manner of literary translation into English for at least three hundred years. The large publishing houses provide further encouragement, since they also expect the translator to be a literature-processor, who not only’ copies texts but simplifies them as well, eliminating troublesome complexities and manufacturing a readily consumable product for the marketplace.
But there is another way in which we can think of literary translation. We can regard the translator not as a passive reproducer of meanings but as an active reader first, and then a creative rewriter of what be has read. This description has the advantages of being more interesting and of corresponding more closely to reality, because a pile of sheets of paper with little squiggly lines on them, glued together along one side, only becomes a work of literature when somebody reads it, and reading is not just a logical process but one involving the whole being: the feelings and the intuitions and the memory and the creative imagination and the whole life experience of the reader.
Computers cannot read, they can only scan. And since the combination of all those human components is unique in each person, there are as many Don Quixotes as there are readers of Don Quixote, as Jorge Luis Borges once declared.
Any translation of this novel is the translator’s account of his reading of it, rather than some inevitably pale shadow of what Cervantes wrote. It will only be a pale shadow if the translator is a dull reader, per haps as a result of accepting the preconditioning that goes with the role of literature processor.
You may object that what I am advocating is extreme chaotic subjectivism, leading to the conclusion that anything goes, in reading and therefore in translation; but it is not, because reading is guided by its own conventions, the interpersonal roles of the literary game that we internalize as we acquire literary experience. By reference to these, we can agree, by reasoned argument, that some readings are more appropriate than others, and therefore that some translations are better than others.
According to the author, the quality of translation depends on ______.
选项
A、degree of subjectivism.
B、the rules of translation.
C、linguistic skills of the translator.
D、the reading of the work to be translated.
答案
D
解析
细节题。本题应根据末段内容进行判断,末段首句后半部分指出:阅读往往受我们自己的习惯、以及阅读时我们对作品内的人际关系感受的引导。末句得出结论:一些人的阅读理解比其他人要好些,这也正是有些人的翻译更好一些的原因。可见作者认为阅读对翻译的质量是至关重要的,故[D]为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/nelO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
WhatisthecauseoftheproblemthatpeoplelivingonpartsofthesouthcoastofEnglandface?Itisnotfeasibletobuildse
PeoplelivingonpartsofthesouthcoastofEnglandfaceaseriousproblem.In1993,theownersofalargehotelandofseveral
HowmanypeoplediedintherecentconflictbetweenIraqipeopleandtheU.S.-ledcoalitiontroops?
HowmanypeoplediedintherecentconflictbetweenIraqipeopleandtheU.S.-ledcoalitiontroops?
A、Peopleofcomparativelyhigherlevels.B、Peopleconsistinglargelyofuniversitystudents,postgraduates,Englishworkers.C、T
"TheIcarusGirl"isthestoryof8-year-oldJessamyHarrison,nicknamedJess.ThedaughterofaNigerianmotherandanEnglish
"TheIcarusGirl"isthestoryof8-year-oldJessamyHarrison,nicknamedJess.ThedaughterofaNigerianmotherandanEnglish
BritishEnglishisspokenin______.
Inthe19thcentury,inEngland,thereappearedaliterarytrend______.
随机试题
简述失业的法律特征。
像饼图一样,圆环图也显示了部分与整体的关系,但圆环图可以包含多个数据系列。在该类型中有:________,________。
脑膜中动脉穿()
增加肠黏膜cAMP含量的药物或毒物引起的腹泻,是因为其
A.长期使用一种受体的激动药后,该受体对激动药的敏感性下降B.长期使用一种受体的激动药后,该受体对激动药的敏感性增强C.长期应用受体拮抗药后,受体数量或受体对激动药的敏感性增加D.受体对一种类型受体的激动药反应下降,对其他类型
2014年某电信企业在委托销售电话入网卡的业务中,向经纪人和代办商支付手续费及佣金100万元,企业当年取得营业收入1000万元,该企业在计算2014年企业所得税时,可以税前扣除的佣金和手续费是()万元。
关于建筑意外伤害保险的说法,正确的是()。
下列关于建设现代能源体系中,推动能源结构、优化升级的具体内容。说法错误的是:
输入设计应该遵循一定的原则,下列()不属于输入设计应该遵循的原则。
Awhitekidsellsabagofcocaineathissuburbanhighschool.ALatinokiddoesthesameinhisinner-cityneighborhood.Both
最新回复
(
0
)