Literary Translation-猫眼课题宝

文学翻译

DOI：

10.1057/9781137310057_13

发表时间：

2014

期刊：

影响因子：

通讯作者：

中科院分区：

文献类型：

作者：

Davies P

翻译过程与大屠杀知识的形成、调解和保存密切相关，以至于引起对翻译及其影响的关注可能会引发对大屠杀研究标签下松散分组的许多学科的结构假设的质疑。我在这里要指出的是，目前对大屠杀证词翻译的讨论大多是为了重申这些假设，而不是通过开辟新的方法论来测试或挑战它们：学者们并没有开发一种帮助我们理解大屠杀证词翻译过程的描述性方法，而是采用了在证词的理论讨论中发展起来的一系列思想——例如，二次目击理论、文本创伤或通用创新理论——这些思想假设了这些假设的独特性。文本并对翻译做出限制性的、批判性的判断。对翻译的讨论常常是一种完全不同的讨论：阅读的伦理、大屠杀和受害者的地位、证词作为文本的独特性或其他方面，或者理解大屠杀的特定方法的适当性。在我看来，有必要首先用翻译本身的术语来谈论翻译，并在预先或禁止特定方法之前进行描述性工作。这样，我们就可以避免在调查和理解的途径被探索之前就关闭它们，并避免做出普遍主义的假设，即所有证词和所有翻译模式都可以或应该以同样的方式被理解。我还认为，很多研究都未能制定出仔细的方法论

Processes of translation are so intimately involved in the formulation, mediation and preservation of knowledge about the Holocaust that drawing attention to translation and its effects might threaten to call into question many of the structuring assumptions of the disciplines that are loosely grouped together under the label Holocaust studies. I will argue here that much of the current discussion of the translation of Holocaust testimonies serves to reaffirm these assumptions, rather than testing or challenging them by opening up new methodological approaches: instead of developing a descriptive methodology that helps us to understand the processes at work in the translation of Holocaust testimonies, scholars employ a range of ideas developed in the theoretical discussion of testimonies–for example, theories of secondary witnessing, textual trauma or generic innovation–that assume the uniqueness of these texts and make proscriptive, critical judgements about translations. Discussion of translation is very often a displaced discussion about something else entirely: the ethics of reading, the status of the Holocaust and the victim, the uniqueness or otherwise of testimonies as texts, or the propriety of particular approaches to understanding the Holocaust.In my view, it is necessary to talk about translation in its own terms first, and to do the descriptive work before pre-or proscribing particular approaches. In this way, we can avoid closing down avenues of investigation and understanding before they have been explored, and avoid making the universalist assumption that all testimonies and all modes of translation can, or should, be understood in the same way. I would also suggest that too often studies fail to make a careful methodological

Literary Translation

文学翻译

文献摘要

相似文献