解构主义的翻译观与语言的模糊性

1、Deconstruction translation theory and vagueness of language解构主义的翻译观与语言的模糊性解构主义的翻译观与语言的模糊性Yue Jiang蒋蒋 跃跃Xian Jiaotong University西安交通大学外国语学院西安交通大学外国语学院1.0 Introduction Deconstruction translation theory Vagueness of language Research questions:What does D have to do with V?So what?Previous research王宁.

2、后结构主义与分解批评.J.文学评论 1987(6).王东风解构“忠实”翻译神话的终结 J. 中国翻译, 2004 (6).郭建中. 韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略 J. 中国翻译, 2000 (1).刘军平. 解构主义的翻译观 J. 外国语，1997 (2).孙宁宁. 解构主义与翻译综述 J 河海大学学报, 2001(9) 68-72.Timothy Williamson. Vagueness M. London & New York: Routeledge, 1994.王宁. Derrida与解构批评的启示：重新思考 J. 清华大学学报（哲学社会科版），2005(2).Kathleen

3、 Davis. Deconstruction and Translation M. Manchester：St. Jerome Publishing，2001: 36-37.Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. London & New York: Routledge, 1993.Lawrence Venuti. ed. Rethinking Translation. London & New York: Routledge, 1992.2.0 Background2.1 Deconstruction Transl

4、ation Theory (DTT)2.1.1 Essence: deconstructs binary contrast , logocentrism and source texts2.1.2 Definition: deconstructs closed structures, dispels the center and origin, eliminates the binary contrast, opens the original texts to readers by disregarding the boundaries.2.0 Background 2.1.2 Repres

5、entativesJacque Derrida (1967/1972)Michael Foucault (1928-1984)Roland Barthes Lawrence Venulti (1990s) 2.0 Background 2.2 Vagueness of language 2.2.1 Essence: Vagueness is an intrinsic property of natural language 2.2.2 Definition: the unclear boundaries or overlapping upper or lower extensions betw

6、een words and concepts that are adjunct to each other in terms of degree or grade. 2.0 Background 2.2.3 Representatives Pierce (1902) Zadeh (1965) Williamson (1994) Lakoff (1971)3.0 Comparison 3.1 Both deconstruct logocentrism 3.2 Both deny a clear-cut boundary between entities (gradual change in th

7、e grade of membership) 3.3 Both find language is unstable and variable 3.4 Both argue for indeterminacy and opening of language and source texts3.0 Comparison 3.5 Both agree that language and source texts are unstable and variable 3.6 Kempsons categories of vagueness (1977) can be found in almost al

8、l DTT in different terms, such as referential vagueness, indeterminacy, lack of specification, disjunction/polysemy of words and expressions3.0 Comparison 3.7 Different terms for similar notions 3.8 DTT seldom mentions vagueness language but actually incorporates the idea pervasively in its theory4.

9、0 Vagueness and DTT 4.1 Semantic indeterminacy and iterability Boundaries of meaning are vague and not clean-cut (Derrida, 1981). 4.2 Translation process is unstable: open (Davis, 2001) to differing and delaying 4.3 Vagueness and intertextuality and translatability, e.g. color, age, time words, (Der

10、rida, 1976/Wu, 1987, 1996)4.0 Vagueness and DTT 4.4 Indeterminacy of source texts 4.4.1 Derridas neologism diffrance (1972c/1982), a combination of differ and delay, to show spatio-temporal movement of language and translations 4.4.2 All language generates meaning through a systemic movement of play

11、 of differences.4.0 Vagueness and DTT 4.4.3 There can be no pure, totally unified origin of meaning of source texts. 4.5 Life of source/original texts depends on readers and translators. Translation and reading give life (afterlife) to source texts are dead without translation. 4.6 Meaning of source

12、 texts depends on translators and readers and thus changes with time according to different translators and readers of different times/ages.5.0 Translation standard of Deconstruction theory 5.1 pluralistic as translations are pluralistic. 5.2 unstable and undetermined. There is no pure, eternal stan

13、dard for translation evaluation 5.3 changeable and variable to keep up with the time 5.4 vague because natural language is innately vague, which decides the indeterminacy and iterability of source texts and translations.6.0 Conclusion Deconstruction translation theory is profoundly influenced by vagueness of natural language, reflects many notions of vague language st