ideology and translaitonWord格式文档下载.docx

ideology and translaitonWord格式文档下载.docx

《ideology and translaitonWord格式文档下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ideology and translaitonWord格式文档下载.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

behrouz_karoubi@

多年来，人们将翻译看成是原作的衍生物和复制品，而将译者看成是用一种语言编码取代另一种语言编码的机械的工具，译者的自主权过去乃至现在始终受到那些将译者看成“除了模仿主人而别无选择的猴子”的人的质疑（Leppihalme1997:

19）。

但是近年来，受后结构主义主义和功能主义的影响，翻译研究关注的焦点已经转移到译者中介和主体性问题上，创造性、（绝对）等值以及作者凌驾于译者等观点受到学界的严重质疑。

Bassnett（1996）认为，有必要对译者的角色进行重新评估，分析在语言转换过程中译者的介入。

她认为，“如果考虑一个文本在没有掺杂的情况下通过有用的透明过滤，译本就可以被看做是一个过程，在此过程中介入发挥了关键作用”（1996:

22）。

Á

lvarez和Vidal（1996）认为，我们只有认识到翻译过程的复杂性与避免简单地将翻译看成一个从一种语言到另一种语言的词语转换过程，才能认识到翻译背后的意识形态的重要性。

两位学者认为，在译者的每一个决策（省略什么、添加什么、选择什么词语、如何排列词语）背后，“都有一个自觉的行为，而这个行为反映了译者的个人经历和社会政治背景。

换言之，这个自觉的行为反映了译者的文化[和意识形态]”（1996:

5）

Theexerciseofideologyintranslationisasoldasthehistoryoftranslationitself.AccordingtoFawcett（1998）,‘throughoutthecenturies,individualsandinstitutionsappliedtheirparticularbeliefstotheproductionofcertaineffectintranslation’（p.107）.Heclaimsthat‘anideologicalapproachtotranslationcanbefoundinsomeoftheearliestexamplesoftranslationknowntous’（p.106）.Nevertheless,thelinguistics-orientedapproachestotranslationstudieshavefailedtoaddresstheconceptofideologythroughyearsoftheirprevalence,becausesuchapproachesarelimitedtotheirscientificmodelsforresearchandtheempiricaldatatheycollect,sothat‘theyremainreluctanttotakeintoaccountthesocialvalues[andideologies]thatenterintotranslatingaswellasthestudyofit’（Venuti,1998a:

1）.Thedeficiencyofoldlinguistics-basedapproaches–which‘aremainlydescriptivestudiesfocusingontextualforms’（Calzada-Pé

rez,2003:

8）–inaccountingforsocialvaluesintranslationandotheraspectsoflanguageuseresultedindevelopinganewtrendofresearchcalledCriticalDiscourseAnalysis（CDA）‘whoseprimaryaimistoexposetheideologicalforcesthatunderliecommunicativeexchanges[liketranslating]’（Calzada-Pé

2）.AccordingtoCDAadvocates,alllanguageuse,includingtranslation,isideologicalandthismeansthattranslationisalwaysasiteforideologicalencounters（p.2）.Similarly,Schä

ffner（2003）claimsthatalltranslationsareideologicalsince‘thechoiceofasourcetextandtheusetowhichthesubsequenttargettextisputaredeterminedbytheinterests,aims,andobjectivesofsocialagents’（p.23）.SheevidentlyoptsforvanDijk’sdefinitionforideologyas‘basicsystemsofsharedsocialrepresentationsthatmaycontrolmorespecificgroupbeliefs’（vanDijk,1996:

7）.However,thereareaprofusionofdiversedefinitionsofideologydefiningthetermfromdifferentperspectives–amongstthemisvanDijk’sdefinition–someofwhicharedeemednecessarytobeoverviewedhere.

Definitionsofideology

Theterm‘ideology’hasbeenalwaysaccompaniedbyitspoliticalconnotationasitisevidentinitsdictionarydefinitionas‘asystemofideasandideals,especiallyonewhichformsthebasisofeconomicorpoliticaltheoryandpolicy’（TheNewOxfordDictionaryofEnglish）.TranslationscholarswhoslantinfavorofthepoliticaldefinitionsofideologymainlybelievethattranslatingitselfisapoliticalactasTahir-Gü

rç

ağlar（2003:

113）argues,‘Translationispoliticalbecause,bothasactivityandproduct,itdisplaysprocessofnegotiationamongdifferentagents.Onmicro-level,theseagentsaretranslators,authors,critics,publishers,editors,andreaders’.UndertheinfluenceofMarxwhodefinesideologyasactionwithoutknowledge（falseconsciousness）,ideologyissometimesdefinedinitsnegativepoliticalsenseas‘asystemofwrong,false,distortedorotherwisemisguidedbeliefs’（vanDijk,qtdinCalzada-Pé

3）.Initsmoreconstructivesense,MarxistslikeLenindefineSocialistideologyas‘aforcethatencouragesrevolutionaryconsciousnessandfostersprogress’（Calzada-Pé

4）.AccordingtoCalzada-Pé

rez（ibid.）,recentdefinitionsofideologyarelinkedwiththeconceptsofpowerrelationsanddomination,asshequotesfromEagleton:

‘[Ideologyis]ideasandbeliefswhichhelptolegitimatetheinterestofarulinggrouporclassbydistortionordissimulation’.Thisview,infact,formsthebasisofpost-colonialthinkingwhich‘highlightsthepowerrelationswhichinformcontemporaryculturalexchanges’（Simon,1996:

136）.However,Calzada-Pé

rez（2003）arguesthatsometimesideologyisviewedinmorepositivesense‘asavehicletopromoteorlegitimateinterestsofaparticularsocialgroup（ratherthanameanstodestroycontenders）’（p.5）.

Scholarsinthefieldoflanguage-related,culturalandtranslationstudies,however,oftentendtoextendtheconceptofideologybeyondpoliticalsphereanddefineitinaratherpoliticallyneutralizedsenseas‘asetofideas,whichorganizeourlivesandhelpusunderstandtherelationtoourenvironment’（Calzada-Pé

5）.Inmostpartsofthecurrentpaper,nevertheless,thewriteroptsforthedefinitionproposedbyvanDijk（1996:

7）forideologyasaframeworkthatis‘assumedtospecificallyorganizeandmonitoroneformofsociallysharedmentalrepresentation,inotherwords,theorganizedevaluativebeliefs—traditionallycalled'

attitudes'

—sharedbysocialgroups’.

Positionofideology

Theideologyoftranslationcouldbetracedinbothprocessandproductoftranslationwhichare,however,closelyinterdependent.Theideologyofatranslation,accordingtoTymoczko（2003）,willbeacombinationofthecontentofthesourcetextandthevariousspeechactsrepresentedinthesourcetextrelevanttothesourcecontext,layeredtogetherwiththerepresentationofthecontent,itsrelevancetothereceptoraudience,andthevariousspeechactsofthetranslationitselfaddressingthetargetcontext,aswellasresonanceanddiscrepanciesbetweenthesetwo‘utterances’.However,shefurtherexplainsthat‘theideologyoftranslationresidesnotsimplyinthetexttranslated,butinthevoicingandstanceofthetranslator,andinitsrelevancetothereceivingaudience’（pp.182–83）.Schä

ffner（2003）explains:

Ideologicalaspectcan[…]bedeterminedwithinatextitself,bothatthelexicallevel（reflected,forexample,inthedeliberatechoiceoravoidanceofaparticularword[…]）andthegrammaticallevel（forexample,useofpassivestructurestoavoidanexpressionofagency）.Ideologicalaspectscanbemoreorlessobviousintexts,dependingonthetopicofatext,itsgenreandcommunicativepurposes.（p.23）

Ideologicalaspectscanalsobeexaminedintheprocessoftextproduction（translating）andtheroleofthetranslatorasatargettextproduceraswellasasourcetextinterpreter.Theseaspectsalongwithtwomajorinfluencingschoolsofpost-structuralismandfunctionalismwillbefurtherexplainedindetailsinthefollowingparagraphs.

Ideologyandthetranslatorasareaderofthesourcetext:

Poststructuralism

AccordingtoVenuti（1992:

6）,poststructuralistthinkerslikeDerridaanddeMan,mainlyundertheinfluenceofBenjamin’sworks,explodethebinaryoppositionbetweenoriginalandtranslationwhichcausestranslatorstobeinvisible.Beforetheemergenceofpoststructuralism,structuralistslikeSaussure,definedlanguageasthescientificallyexaminableworldofsymbolsconstitutingthelinguisticsystemandsocialstructurewithinwhichtheindividualissociallyshaped.Thestructuralistsbelievedthat‘languageisconstructedasasystemofsigns,eachsignbeingtheresultofconventionalrelationbetweenwordandmeaning,betweenasignifier（asoundorsound-image）andasignified（thereferent,orconceptrepresentedbythesignifier）’（Roman,2002:

309）.Later,Barthes,anearlypoststructuralist,claimedthat‘signifiersandsingnifiedsarenotfixed,unchangeable,but,onthecontrary,canmakethesignitselfsignifyingmorecomplexmythicalsignsasintricatesignifiersoftheorderofmyth’（Roman,2002:

310）.Thisshiftofideafromstructuralismtowardpoststructuralismresultedinextremerevisionsindifferentdomainsoflanguage,forexample,developingof‘thedeathofauthor’thinkingwhichlaterfounditswayintoTranslationStudies.Frominstabilityofthesignifiersandsignifieds,Barthesconcludesthatreadingtextsintermsofauthorialintentionorwhatwethinktheauthormeantbysuchandsuchastatement,andreferringthesourceofmeaningandauthorityofatextbacktoitsauthor（asthecreatorofthattext）isnomoreacceptable（Royle,2003:

7）.Barthesarguesthat‘sincewritersonlywritewithinasystemoflanguageinwhichparticularizedauthorsarebornandshaped,textscannotbethoughtofintermsoftheirauthor’sintentions,butonlyinrelationshipwithothertexts:

inintertextuality’（Roman,2002:

311）.Intheabsenceoftheauthor,Barthesexplains,thereaders（atranslatorcouldbeoneofthem）interprettextsbysettingthemagainsttheirbackdropofknownwordsandphrases,existingstatements,familiarconventions,anteriortexts,or,inotherwords,theirgeneralknowledgewhichisideological;

andthemeaningofatextbecomeswhatindividualreadersextractfromit,notwhatasupremeAuthorputin.（Hermans,1999:

69）‘“ThebirthofthereadermustbeatthecostofthedeathoftheAuthor”,Barthesbravelydeclares’（ibid）.

Derrida,anotherpoststructuralist,drawsattentionfromthesignifiedstothechainofsignifiers,asRoman（2002）explains:

DerridatakesthestructureofsignfromSaussure,buttransformsitintoafluidentity,wherebymeaningandwritingconsistsolelyinsignifiers.Signifiersreferonlytoeachotherandmeaningbecomesunstablesinceanydeferraltoyetanothersignifierimpliesadifferenceinanendlesschainofsignification.ThisisthemeaningoftheFrenchtermdiffé

rence（fromtheFrenchverbdiffé

rer,withitspolysemantics