图里 翻译规范论

GideonToury:towardatarget-texttheoryoftranslationTwoPeriodsofhiswork1972-1976,baseonpolysystemtheoryframework,reportedinTranslationNormsandLiteraryTranslationintoHebrew,acomprehensivesociologicalstudyoftheculturalconditionsaffectingthetranslationofforeignlanguagenovelsintoHebrewduringtheperiod1930-45;1975-1980,stillbasedonpolysystemframework,buthecameupahypothesiswhichdistinguishedhimfromhispredecessors,collectedinpapersInSearchofaTheoryofTranslation,anattempttodevelopamorecomprehensivetheoryoftranslationbaseonfindingsofhisownfieldwork;

Toury:abriefsummaryofhislifeGideonTouryisProfessorofPoetics,ComparativeLiteratureandTranslationStudiesatTelAvivUniversity,whereheholdstheM.BernsteinChairofTranslationTheory.HeisthefounderandGeneralEditorofTarget:InternationalJournalofTranslationStudiesandforyearsGeneralEditoroftheimportantBenjaminsTranslationLibrary.Hehaspublishedthreebooks,anumberofeditedvolumesandnumerousarticles,inbothEnglishandHebrew,inthefieldsoftranslationtheoryandcomparativeliterature.Hisarticleshavealsoappearedintranslationinmanyotherlanguages,andheishimselfanactivetranslatortoo(withabout30booksandmanyarticlestohiscredit).Heisamemberoftheeditorialoradvisoryboardsofanumberofinternationaljournals.In2000,hewasawardedanhonorarydoctoratebyMiddlesexUniversity,London.FieldworkofGideonTouryGoal:todiscovertheactualdecisionsmadeduringthetranslationprocess,andeventuallyasystemofrulesgoverningthetranslation;Findings:linguisticsandaestheticsplayedaverysmallroleinthetranslationprocess;mosttextswereselectedforideologicalreasons;accidentsalso.Despitethelackofconformitywithhypotheticalmodelsoftranslationequivalence,mistranslationsarerare;completeequivalenceisevenrarer.Near-adequacyisoftenaccidental.Reasonsforlackofconcernfor“faithfulness”:thetranslators’maingoalofachievingacceptabletranslationsinthetargetculture;culturalconditionofthereceivingsystempredominates.CriticismofthecurrenttheorycontextSkepticismofabstracttheoriesinvolvingidealauthors,translators,andreaders.Aesthetictheoriesofliterarytransferandevenpair-bound“objective”descriptionsoflinguisticpossibilitiesdonotaccountforvariousfactorswhichclearlyinfluencethetranslationproduct.Thethentheoreticalcontextwhichwasdominatedbytranslationmodelsthatpositsadefinitionofequivalenceasfunctional-dynamic.Itis,forToury,source-oriented

andinvariablydirective

andnormativebecausetheyrecognizedonlycorrectinstancesandtypes.ToomuchidealizedToury’sowntheoreticalframeworkOpposestheoriesthatarebaseduponasingleunifiedandabstractidentityoraproperinterpretationof“equal”performance.Isbasedondifferenceandassumesstructuraldifferencesbetweenlanguages.Positshypotheticalpolesoftotalacceptabilityinthetargetcultureattheoneextremeandtotaladequacytothesourcetextattheother.Translationislocatedinthemiddle.Translationequivalenceisnotahypotheticalidealbutanempiricalmatter.Thetranslatedtextexistsasaculturalartifactforthereplacementofasourcetextbyanacceptableversioninthereceivingculture.Toury’sowntheoreticalframework“Original”textscontainclustersofproperties,meanings,possibilities.Alltranslationprivilegecertainproperties/meaningsattheexpenseofothers,andtheconceptofa“correct”translationceasestobearealpossibility(Toury,1980:18)Translationsthemselveshaveno“fixed”identity;becausetheyarealwayssubjecttodifferentsocio-literarycontextualfactors,theythusmustbeviewedashavingmultipleidentities,dependentupontheforcesthatgovernthedecisionprocessataparticulartime.SignificanceofToury’sideaandthechangesitbringsHepushestheconceptofatheoryoftranslationbeyondthemarginsofamodelrestrictedtofaithfulnesstotheoriginal,orofsingle,unifiedrelationshipbetweenthesourceandtargettexts.Translationbecomesarelativeterm,dependentupontheforcesofhistoryandthesemioticwebcalledculture.Theroleoftranslationtheoryisaltered.Itceasesitssearchforasystemfromwhichtojudgetheproductandnowfocusesonthedevelopmentofamodeltohelpexplaintheprocessthatdeterminesthefinalversion.Target-texttheoryAsopposedtosource-texttheory;Itfocusesnotonsomenotionofequivalenceaspostulatedrequirements,butontheactualrelationshipconstructedbetweenthesourcetextandits“factualreplacement”.Heintroducesanewsetoffactorsthatmaybemorepowerfulthatotherfactors.TheeventualgoalofToury’stheorywastoestablishahierarchyofinterrelatedfactorsthatdeterminethetranslationproduct.Inshort,Tourydemandedthattranslationtheoryincludecultural-historical“facts”,asetoflawsthathecalls“translationnorms”.3kindsofnormsThreekindsoftranslationnorms:Preliminary:factorssuchasthosewhichgovernthechoiceoftheworkandtheoveralltranslationstrategywithinapolysystem.Initial:categorizetheindividualtranslator’schoicetosubjectoneselfeithertotheoriginaltextwithitstextualrelationsandnorms,orsomecombinationthereof.Operational:theactualdecisionsmadeduringthetranslationprocess.MethodologytodeterminehisnormsComparativelyexamineseveraltranslationsofoneoriginaltextcarriedoutindifferentperiodsbyvarioustranslators.Thecomparisonrevealsthedifferentdefinitionsoftranslation,theprioritiesofthetranslators,andtheoftensubconsciousrulesinfluencingthedecisionprocess.BUT,thiscomparisonworkdoesn’tinvolveactualtexts.

Inordertocarryoutaseriesofcomparisonsandtomeasurestheshiftsrevealingthenormswhichdeterminesthem,Touryinvokesanidealinvariantthirdtextthatisthe“adequatetranslation”,notbasedonacomparisontotheoriginalandvarioushistoricallyboundtexts,butonabstractlinguisticandliterarytheory.ContradictionsinTouryandexplanation1.Theproposalofanidealthirdtextandthenecessityofanideal“invariantofcomparison”2.Theappealtoformaluniversalsinanotherwiseperformance-orientedandmaterialtheoryExplanationsToury’stheoryoriginatesfrompolysystemtheory,whichagainoriginatesfromRussianFormalistconceptualthinking.Thushisworkinvolvesstaticconcepts.Hisanalysisdocumentsconformity,notexceptions.Touryconfinetheiranalysistoentitiescalled“literary”andtendtodivorcet