譯隻綠蠵龜

海綿寶寶 前4分鐘

Something smellshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mS7APoAaNY

臭到不行http://video01.eyny.com/index.php/video/index/F7KQQNXA.html

口氣http://xiyou.cntv.cn/v-9b90d48e-f161-11df-8901-001e0bbb2430.html

隨著科技日益發展，翻譯研究也出現新的突破，作者在本章介紹了三種新興的領域，即語料庫研究、視聽翻譯以及全球化與在地化對翻譯的影響。

在語料庫研究方面，作者認為藉由分析單一語料庫或比較不同語料庫，可以發現譯文中的詞彙特徵或文法規則，也可以應用在描述分析和對比分析。

視聽翻譯是一個尚未成熟的研究領域，在定義和研究範圍上也存有模糊空間。從事視聽翻譯必須遵守許多規範，除了要尊重原作，也要注意文字與畫面的搭配，以及如何傳遞其他非語言符號。另外，因為受限於時間和空間，譯者必須從原文中篩選出應該保留的訊息，並想出適合口語表達而且精簡到位的翻譯。更重要的是，影視文本也牽涉許多文化因素，有些甚至是無法用文字表達的，這也是翻譯難以克服的藩籬。

最後作者提到翻譯與在地化（localization）之間的區別，以及在日益全球化且高度科技化的社會，譯者的角色和定位有和改變。同時，作者也特別討論翻譯是否能幫助弱勢文化和弱勢語言擺脫邊緣角色。

我直到大三、大四才開始使用語料庫，我覺得語料庫在台灣沒有很普遍，一般使用者通常也只是把語料庫當成寫作時的輔助工具，看完本章我才知道語料庫也可以納入翻譯研究的一環，但也許還是需要借助語言學的相關知識和背景，才能系統性的分析這些資料庫。

最後一章提到了近年來科技發展對翻譯的影響，這算是一個翻譯發展的最新趨勢，也是翻譯研究的新興領域。

作者首先提到了語料庫在翻譯上的應用，接著介紹目前影視翻譯的發展與挑戰，最後第三部分則是討論本土化與全球化的議題。

過去在大學就曾經學過一些語料庫語言學，但是當然並沒有想到可以把語料庫作為翻譯的工具。在這一章，作者提到了三種語料庫，分別是單一語言語料庫、雙語語料庫以及平行語料庫，並且稍微提到的可以如何結合語料庫語翻譯的方法，我覺得十分有用，可以用在分析文本，也可以用來找搭配詞。

接著，作者提到了影視翻譯，這恰巧是上週筆譯課的主題，所以覺得還很熟悉。影視翻譯是因為全球化和科技發展才開始興起，與過去的筆譯性質非常不一樣，受到的局限也更多，翻譯策略更是不同。由於受到字數限制，譯者可能無法翻譯所有的元素，但是又因為時常背景都有原文原音，譯者並不能自由發揮，還是必須盡量貼近原文，才經得起觀眾的檢視。同時，翻譯還要配合畫面，甚至配合畫面上說話者的動作和嘴型，這都不是一般的筆譯會考量的層面。不過，相對而言，影視翻譯的譯者比較自由，有很多發揮創意的空間，很多時候可以翻譯得很口語，有時畫面也能夠輔助觀眾理解，所以譯者可以不需要把全部的意思都解釋得很詳細。我想這就是影視翻譯的魅力所在。

很多本土化的工作也是到了近幾年才開始變得熱門，像是遊戲本土化、軟體本土化等等，這些為本土化所做的翻譯又有各自不同的翻譯策略和目的，所以這些都是翻譯領域新興的發展方向。

本章主要著重三個部分，首先是語料庫的應用，語料庫是一種深入分析及研究翻譯語言的工具。第二為影視翻譯，影視翻譯有時需要創新的譯法，與以往的需求大大不同。第三則為本土化和全球化，在今日快速變遷的社會，本土化和全球化這種新的翻譯實踐改變了以往著重的對等概念，為譯者面臨的最大挑戰。此三大重點的相同處是皆與時代變遷以及日益進步的科技有關。除此之外，這三項改變皆不約而同造成翻譯理論和實作的轉變，讓人重新思考翻譯這份工作。

由於林俊宏老師上週才介紹過影視翻譯，雖然影視翻譯乍看之下包含很多娛樂成分，但是和所有翻譯工作一樣十分耗腦力，原因不外乎是翻譯時的目的不同，需求也不同，影視翻譯常常需要娛樂大眾，這不光是直譯或是意譯兩大翻譯方式就能夠解決的問題，影視翻譯很大部分會考慮視聽者的接收。此外，此工作中，文字與畫面和聲音的配合也相當重要，若是沒有顧及到畫面和聲音便一股腦兒地翻出，效果也會大打折扣，我認為這些都是讓影視翻譯難上加難的原因。

Chapter 11 brings the reader close to the overall development of our current society and looks at translation practice and theory from the heavily technology-influenced market and society.

    Munday introduces the origins, types, uses, and limits of corpus-based translation studies. With the help of technology and accumulation of databases, previous theories or hypotheses can be tested and some patterns can also be found and studied. The different corpora are suitable for different types of purpose and study, and there is a potential that using corpora for research can combine quantitative data, qualitative focus, and descriptive study within translation studies. Due to the large scale and the many difficulties involved, it seems that the project of building a corpus is more feasible for scholars and professors to carry out rather than students. Research studies that use corpus for study seems to be quite handy for the study, analysis, and observation of the interpretation process. Studies on a particular phrase or word or pattern can benefit from a good representative corpus. But of course, there are limits as to the study of stylistic analysis.

The part of audiovisual translation provides a comprehensive introduction to the newly emerging field that is still a fertile land for exploration and further development. The field of translation studies again is further expanded to incorporate film studies. The issues and focus of audiovisual translation are many, which make the entire study rather complex and broad encompassing, even if very interesting. A background in film studies is quite necessary for this type of research. Possibly due to the specificity of the work of subtitling translation that differs from other forms of translation, prescriptivism is currently the mainstream in the literature of this branch in translation studies. The vulnerability of audiovisual translation is especially interesting too, pointing out another distinctive characteristic that belongs to subtitling translation. Overall speaking, I find that translators and works of translation are in general “vulnerable” to criticism, but what makes the subtitle translator and his/her translated subtitles even more exposed to criticism is the fact that the ST is readily available, in fact right in front of the “critics’” eyes or heard directly by the audience at the same time that the subtitle appears. It is the arrangement and nature of subtitles that naturally invites immediate review, scrutiny, and commentary.

Localization and globalization is the trend that goes mostly hand in hand with the demands of the current market. The user/reader-oriented approach is the norm and the mainstream, so the foreignization-domestication continuum is sharply sloped towards the domesticating end for the use of the TL. A lively example given by Munday is the translation of video games for different culture regions. What is valued most importantly in this business is that the “TL” reads like an original itself. Adaptation is most of the time necessary, so traditional notions of the status of ST and TT is greatly turned upside down. The ST may possibly become only a source of inspiration and foundation of information in which the TT builds upon and in the end creates a very different text from the ST. Munday introduced Cronin’s political and ideological criticisms on the development of the translation business. Similar to the fact that people who are not connected to the “information superhighway” are barred from the current translation business, it seems that translators who are not equipped with the translation software and the competence to use them will also be slowly marginalized in the translation market. Yet there is an irony in this technological “advancement.” The development of translation machines aids the translator in increasing effectiveness, but at the same time it also further spreads the notion that the work of translation is dehumanized and could be easily done by machines, which further “devalues” translators and the work of translators.

The previous ten chapters in the book Introducing Translation Studies are concerned with written texts or the comparison between two or more texts in different languages. I guess if a person does not have the habit of reading or watching movies, s/he may think that translation seems to be none of their business. If it so happens that that person is reading Chapter 11, I think this chapter can provide him/her some new insights about living with translation in everyday life. For me as a student learning about translation, this chapter is rather interesting to me as I have keen interest on translations in daily life, especially movies and cartoons.

Munday provides us three examples of how technology influences the study of translation: corpus-based translation, audiovisual translation as well as localization and globalization. Technology facilitates the analysis of texts using corpus linguistic tools as large amount of data can be collected more easily and the quality of the data is far better than that of the analyst. This kind of translation studies can help to investigate translated texts and/or non-translated texts. Through comparison and analysis, possible features (grammatical, lexical and syntactic features) that are characterized by translated texts and the style of translators can be found.

Audiovisual translation is another byproduct of advancement of technology, which involves both verbal and non-verbal elements, and was doubted by many whether it should be classified as translation as speech on the screen is not “accurately” translated into target language due to different constraints (e.g. space and time constraints). A prescriptive approach towards audiovisual translation has offered different guidelines towards proper subtitling and also stimulated descriptive studies on this area, both linguistically and non-linguistically.

New technologies are introduced every day and have lead to the emergence of new forms of translations, like fansubs, video game translation, localization of software and applications. These forms of translation put emphasis on the function (skopos), creativity and originality, rather than accuracy. The relationship of ST and TT has undergone another revolution: there is no comparison between ST and TT, the status of the source text is gone and the standard of translation has changed. Not only does globalization provide translators new role, new status and new job objectives, it also allows existing translation practice and theory different opportunities and insights for re-evaluation.

本章探討隨著語音科技及電子產品的進步，語料庫的重要性日趨重要，也廣受大眾重視，更改變了傳統翻譯的方式。從語料庫的研討、視聽翻譯至本土化及全球化，有系統的介紹以現代科技產生輔助翻譯所應注意的問題及原則。

 Baker 及其他語料庫專家的著作說明了語料庫種類，從單語語料庫 (monolingual corpora)、比較語料庫 (comparable corpora)、平行語料庫(Parallel corpora)。

Gottlieb認為字幕是符號內體系(intrasemiotic)，"it operates within the confines of the film and TV media, and stays within the code of verbal language."且受到“textual or qualitative constraint”和“formal or quantitative constraint”的雙重限制。前者指影視作品中的對白和影像決定了字幕在畫面上的位置和停留的時間。後者主要指字幕受到的空間限制，所以縮譯更加需要。這也可以說明為什麼Gambier認為影視翻譯應更貼近譯入語為考量，提出了transadaptation的概念。同語間字幕(interlingual subtitling)、bilingual subtitling(雙語字幕)、intralingual(語內字幕)、dubbing(字幕配音)、voice-over(說明式的旁白--例如紀綠片)、audio description(描述式配音--視障者專用)

從本篇文章了解到，翻譯不僅隨著文化、國情、人際而產生改變，連科技的進步也帶動了翻譯進行革命，原本以為傳統紙和筆的作業模式，現在也可進行機械式翻譯，以建立term base為基礎進行快速機器翻譯。但資訊快速流通的世界，如果單靠人的力量是無法負擔如此大量的翻譯活動，若依靠機器翻譯，其所需的Term Base建立也是需要人工建立，等人工建立完再跑程式進去翻譯記憶資料庫，這段花費的時間根本無法趕上語言的快速改變，機器翻譯有可能取代人嗎? 

Philosophy can always give me a big headache. In reading philosophical theories of translation, I have to at least read a couple of times before I start to understand a bit of it (despite I did read a few about that last semester). From reading the theories proposed by George Steiner, Ezra Pound, Walter Benjamin and Jacques Derrida, it is obvious that theories of translation are no longer about the pursuit of accuracy and fidelity, but are open to more variations, like foreignness proposed by the first three theorists mentioned above.

Steiner’s hermeneutics of translation consists of four parts, aiming to have both the original and translation co-exist and complement each other (which gives resonance to “pure language” proposed by Benjamin) while trying to escape from the traditional translation “realm” of faithfulness and accuracy. Ezra Pound has offered an invocative solution to possibilities of translation, which has continued to inspire translators as the focus is on the specific language used, while casting off conventional ideas in translating classics. As each text is composed in a particular social, historical and cultural background, the form of the translation is retained and the opening is open for readers’ interpretation. Walter Benjamin proposes that translators are responsible to liberate the language in the source text with the translated work. Translation is no longer under the umbrella of the source text and has its own prominence. Jacques Derrida tries to offer a dual way of thinking about everything and intends to suspend the norms in every field. He believes that “deconstruction rejects the primacy of meaning fixed in the word” (p.170) and in that sense, meaning is “an endless supplementarity” (p.170) – the concept of différance, thus source texts and target texts are interdependent and that translations help readers to explore the meanings of the source texts.

Foreignness and recreations were once regarded as inferior to “translation proper”, yet right now translation studies have evolved to finding values in translations using different strategies. Different translations serve to complement the source text and provide readers with different interpretations of the same text. Translation studies have cast off the authoritative prescriptive approach and are now more open to new insights.

   This chapter discusses about the philosophical approaches to translation with the introduction of the influence of George Steiner, Erza Pound, Walter Benjamin and Jacques Derrida. Translation is no longer a matter of accuracy and target texts become more visible to the world, rather than a slave of the source text.

Translation between languages becomes impossible as the translated text carries the translator’s culture, belief and knowledge and thus the translated text can never carry the exact form and meaning of the source text. Even there is a direct translation of a word or phrase, readers from different culture have different understandings and perceptions about that (I guess the example used by Ms Chen about the differences of “bun” in the Chinese culture and in the western culture can help to explain in this context). The work of a translator thus is not to convey what has been expressed in the source texts but to complement the source text and helps the source texts to be more visible to the world. It is normal that a translated text is different from the source text because fundamentally it is not the task of a translator to make them the same.

本章討論偏哲學的翻譯理論，作者介紹了四位大家，分別是Steiner、Pound、Benjamin、Derrida。

作者首先介紹Steiner的闡釋學(hermeneutic motion)，Steiner認為，闡釋就是理解原文，並且以一種普遍的意義模式分析其過程(to “understand” a piece of oral or written speech, and the attempt to diagnose this process in terms of a general model of meaning”。Steiner認為翻譯不是一門科學，而是一種嚴謹的藝術(an exact art)，他提出的闡釋一共分成四個階段：初期信任(initial trust)、攻佔(aggression)、吸納(incorporation)、補償(compensation)。譯者首先要相信原文裡有訊息值得而且可以翻譯，接著，譯者把原文「俘虜」，第三是把原文帶入譯入語中，而此舉將可能影響譯入語，所以需要第四階段的補償，使譯文原文能達到平衡。同時，就像「回聲」或「鏡子」的意象，譯文也豐富的原文。Steiner提出翻譯會造成失衡(imbalance)的狀況，當原文勝過譯文，則譯文能更加細膩精確地凸顯原文的價值，當譯文勝過原文，譯文則能顯現原文原本沒有顯現出來的潛在價值。Steiner認為忠實(faithful)的譯者就是要致力於保留這些原文力量的平衡，而不懷著特定的目的來理解原文。

Steiner還認為Pound沒有中文背景卻翻譯中文詩是一種優勢，因為不懂中文，Pound就不會有先入為主的觀念。作者在本章接下來提到的就是Pound的翻譯策略，Pound著重的重點在保留原文的能量，也就是原文的音律、格式等等，而不是意義。他敢於實驗、創新，後來啟發了許多譯者和理論家。

Benjamin則強調純語言(pure language)的概念，而要達成純語言的方法，就是直譯。好的譯文應該要能顯示譯文與原文之間的相互關係，譯文可以獨立存在，又與原文能保持聯繫。Benjamin心目中理想的譯文就是一本平行的聖經(an interlinear version of the Bible)。

最後，作者介紹了Derrida的解構理論，其中最具代表性的字就是différance，結合了differ（差異）與defer（延異）的概念。解構理論同樣偏向異化，藉由保留原文的句法、用字、排版，進而營造出新而奇的形式（strange new forms）。

   本章以哲學角度解釋翻譯行為，著重的是翻譯過程背後的理解與意義。作者首先討論Steiner的詮釋學，所謂詮釋學方法即是研究譯者如何「理解」口頭或書面語言，並試圖以一種普遍的意義模式概括這個過程。對Steiner來說，翻譯是一門藝術，所有的表意過程和帶有闡釋性的接受行為都是可以翻譯的，這種整體化的翻譯活動涵蓋四種步驟：信任、攻佔、吸納與補償。Steiner認為，這種流動、富有道德且不破壞平衡的詮釋方法能使譯者忠於文本，以作出負責的反應。既然翻譯活動是理解的過程，譯者必須跳脫自身的框架，巧妙地融入他者，才能體驗語言與文化的差異；過程中，譯者會在排斥性差異(resistant difference)和選擇性契合(elective affinity)之間拉扯，而這兩種張力就會體現在譯作中，使譯作具有「解釋性的陌生感」（elucidative strangeness）。

接著，作者討論龐德的實驗主義和本雅明提出的譯者的任務。龐德對原文的解讀帶有意象主義的精神，目的是從文字的意象中捕捉原文的能量。他在翻譯時也刻意擬古和異化，並把翻譯視為一種批評活動，這種實驗性的翻譯方法既能使譯文帶有新意，也能傳遞原文的能量。本雅明認為翻譯獨立存在，譯作衍生於原文的afterlife，同時又讓原作的生命得以延續。譯者的任務就是透過再創造，將純語言從原作中解放出來，譯者必須採取和諧化的手段，使譯文與原文相互輝映，他認為最好的作法就是直譯。

最後，作者將重點放在Derrida的解構主義。Derrida在討論意義如何產生時，將重點從差異（differ）轉到延異（defer），代表意義總是受到延遲，而意義的增補也許會永無止盡。因此，他從Babel的詞源研究中指出語言十分混亂多樣，而且在語言表達上不可能實現連貫又完整的敘述，所以翻譯成為必須卻又不可能完成的任務。Derrida認為原文與譯文之間存在相互依存的關係，而且因為語言符號沒有穩定性，他也批評翻譯的連貫概念。Venuti在翻譯Derrida的言論或著作時，採用的是異化策略，Lewis形容此為一種「放縱式的忠實」（abusive fidelity），譯者以實驗性的手段再現原作的句法結構、詞彙等關鍵因素，並添加原文中沒有的元素，同時也要避免將流暢以及使用價值視為優先考量。

讀完本章，我覺得因為哲學概念本身就存有很大的討論空間，而個人的解讀又不盡相同，所以我不確定自己是否真正理解這幾位學者提出的理念。但歸納其中有關翻譯活動的分析和闡釋，我認為他們的翻譯策略都較偏向異化，對他們來說，好的翻譯不等於流暢的歸化，而應該要將foreignness和at-homeness同時並存。我覺得這就和之前王東風老師談到的概念相符，因為唯有透過語言表達的常規和變異之間互相拉扯，才能體現出文學作品的詩學價值。此外，這幾位學者也認為，透過譯者的再創造和補償，譯作會替原作加值，甚至讓原作的生命能量得以再現。但我覺得這些學說將翻譯的過程過度理想化，也存有一些模糊地帶，就像Steiner以龐德翻譯中文為例，認為譯者如果不甚了解原文及其文化，反而是個優勢，因為譯者在翻譯時會比較順利，也不會先入為主。我覺得這有點矛盾，因為譯者如果不熟悉原文及其文化，他要以何種基礎判斷自己的譯文是否彰顯出原文的變異和常規？又怎麼確保自己確實傳遞出原文的能量？

The philosophical theories of translation may be some of the hardest to understand. But they are also the most interesting ones, as they challenge and force us to rethink our preconceived notions about translations and languages that are often taken for granted. In this present chapter, four thinkers bring fundamental questions right before our eyes: what is the nature, the purpose and process of translation and what are the translator’s roles and choices?

Munday begins by introducing Steiner’s hermeneutics and the four movements of translation. Steiner’s views on translation shares similarities with Benjamin’s philosophy of language and translation, especially the importance of the translation to the original. It does not matter if the translation is “greater” or “lesser” than the ST, it will always enhance the ST (hence, “balance” is also achieved). Good translations are “indispensable to the original[s]” because they enrich and enhance the source text, language and even culture. This notion shares many similarities with Benjamin’s view of the positive consequences of having as many translations as possible in order to reveal the hidden relationship between languages as well as reach closer to “pure language.”

For Steiner, translation is a move that brings oneself into the foreign. Munday describes Steiner’s views that “real understanding and translation occur at the point where languages diffuse into each other, then the ability to move outside the self is key.” Not only balance is reached when two languages closely connect and interact, but this movement is characterized by stepping away from the familiar into the unknown, and the process alters and changes the way translators, languages and culture perceive themselves. I particularly enjoy Steiner’s words as provided by Munday: “to experience difference…is to re-experience identity” (166).

But as for the reduced tension and “triviality” of translation between two distant cultures and languages, I do not completely agree with Steiner. It is indeed paradoxical as described by Munday, but no further explanation is given. I just wonder, how can two distant cultures and languages have less tension between “resistant difference” and “elective affinity”? It is true that Steiner discusses languages that are “near” and in closer proximity, such as German and English. But if we translation between English and Chinese, the much more sharp differences in language and culture may create much more resistance to the ST, resulting also in the translator’s subjective selection of parts and emphasis to translate, according to his/her interpretation and understanding of the ST.

“Difference” seems to be a key word in this chapter and is emphasized by all four theorists, though each somewhat different from the other. For Steiner, differences in translations are tools for re-acquainting oneself. A major task of translation is also showing the “difference” in the ST through translation. Pound’s experimentalist compositions stand out as very different among the poetic styles of the time. For Pound, translation is criticism of the original work, and is a tool to express and point out the essential features of the original. Benjamin posits that translation shows the relationship between different languages, so the ST and its translations complement each other and point to “pure language.” Derrida even coins a new term “différance” to refer to difference and deference.

本書第2章，討論20世紀以前的翻譯理論中可知，從18世紀開始，德國學者施萊爾瑪赫運用詮釋學的概念來分析翻譯過程，其翻譯理論體現了詮釋學派的一個基本理念--真正的理解是對語篇作出「創造性的重新闡釋」，他的觀點與現代「以譯者為中心」的翻譯理論可說是相呼應的。施萊爾瑪赫的首要作法是以作者為中心的譯法，譯者主目的在將原文給予原文讀者的感受傳給譯文讀者，作法二是以譯文讀者為中心的譯法。

史坦納(Steiner G)認為詮釋學的運用，「在意義轉移時，挪用原文意思」-方法有四種:

一、信任(initiative trust)--確信語篇是有其實義的。

二、攻佔(aggression)--深入瞭解文本，進行攫取。

三、吸納(incorporation)-- 吸收後內化提升自已文化，或被自已文化排除