Hist Trans Theo EN 9 - Revision history

Li Shuang: /* 1.1Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet */

2022-01-02T09:14:27Z

1.1Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet

Li Shuang: /* 关键词 */

2021-12-16T07:19:40Z

关键词

Li Shuang: /* 2. Literary Translation Theories= */

2021-12-16T07:19:08Z

2. Literary Translation Theories=

Li Shuang: /* References */

2021-12-16T07:18:39Z

References

Li Shuang: /* Conlusion */

2021-12-16T07:13:35Z

Conlusion

Li Shuang: /* 4.Interpretive Theory */

2021-12-16T07:08:20Z

4.Interpretive Theory

Li Shuang: /* 3.Translation Theory of Hermeneutics */

2021-12-16T06:54:40Z

3.Translation Theory of Hermeneutics

Li Shuang: /* 2. Literary Translation Theories= */

2021-12-16T06:24:31Z

2. Literary Translation Theories=

Li Shuang: /* 1.Translation Theories of School of Linguistics */

2021-12-16T06:07:46Z

1.Translation Theories of School of Linguistics

Li Shuang: /* 1.Translation Theories of School of Linguistics */

2021-12-16T05:12:51Z

1.Translation Theories of School of Linguistics

Show changes

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 Although Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet emigrated from France to Canada, the expression of their translation thought was mainly in France, where they participated in and influenced French translation theory, and where their book ''A Comparative Study of French-English Rhetoric'' was written in French and published in France. In addition to this book, they have published many articles in the ''Bulletin des traducteurs'' of the Association of French Translators and the ''Méta'' of the Association of Canadian Translators, and Jean-Paul Vinay has written the entry "Translation" for the French "Encyclopedia of Seven Stars" volume "Language".
-Their contributions to translation theory research are mainly as follows: 1. The establishment of a series of univocal translation terms that are more strictly defined. The establishment of the terminology is an important step towards scientific research, which itself means the scholars' understanding and definition of the elements of the research object, laying a good foundation for the systematic construction of translation theory and translation study. 2. The object of translation is information (i.e., thoughts, emotions, etc.), so the unit of translation should be the unit of thought. This is different from the previous traditional concept of "word as a unit", which recognizes that a word does not fully represent the independent meaning of a paragraph handled by the translator in the translation process. The unit of thought should be associated with a meaningful combination of sentences and paragraphs. From the point of view of correspondence with words, they divide translation units into three categories: "simple units" (units that can correspond to a single word), "expanded units" (combinations of sentences and segments in which several words form a lexical unit of independent meaning), and "fractional units" (units of meaning that can be used in the translation process). "fractional units", (parts of a word, but with a complete meaning, such as prefixes, suffixes, etc., the similarity of which can be seen in Chomsky's linguistic view that the core of a sentence is the tense). Depending on the role of translation units in the message, they also distinguish some different types of units, such as "functional units" (consisting of elements with the same grammatical function), "semantic units" (with independent meanings), and "dialectical units" (used for argumentative reasoning and indicating relationships), "rhyme units" (composed of elements contained in the same tone), etc. 3. A strictly defined classification of translation techniques was made, and seven ways of solving translation difficulties were summarized: borrowing, imitation, literal translation, transposition, flexible adjustment, equivalence and rewriting. Although the first three are still a bit far from the real translation, and the last "rewriting" is out of the scope of translation, making the translator another creator, their exploration is meaningful to the establishment of a scientific translation theory, and they try to apply "methodology" to the study of translation theory for the first time. But their exploration is significant for the establishment of a scientific translation theory, and for the first time they tried to apply "methodology" to the study of translation theory, so that it began to break away from the traditional fragmentary translation criticism based on intuition and experience.(Yang 1987:53)
+Their contributions to translation theory research are mainly as follows: 1. The establishment of a series of univocal translation terms that are more strictly defined. The establishment of the terminology is an important step towards scientific research, which itself means the scholars' understanding and definition of the elements of the research object, laying a good foundation for the systematic construction of translation theory and translation study. 2. The object of translation is information (i.e., thoughts, emotions, etc.), so the unit of translation should be the unit of thought. This is different from the previous traditional concept of "word as a unit", which recognizes that a word does not fully represent the independent meaning of a paragraph handled by the translator in the translation process. The unit of thought should be associated with a meaningful combination of sentences and paragraphs. From the point of view of correspondence with words, they divide translation units into three categories: "simple units" (units that can correspond to a single word), "expanded units" (combinations of sentences and segments in which several words form a lexical unit of independent meaning), and "fractional units" (parts of a word, but with a complete meaning, such as prefixes, suffixes, etc., the similarity of which can be seen in Chomsky's linguistic view that the core of a sentence is the tense). Depending on the role of translation units in the message, they also distinguish some different types of units, such as "functional units" (consisting of elements with the same grammatical function), "semantic units" (with independent meanings), and "dialectical units" (used for argumentative reasoning and indicating relationships), "rhyme units" (composed of elements contained in the same tone), etc. 3. A strictly defined classification of translation techniques was made, and seven ways of solving translation difficulties were summarized: borrowing, imitation, literal translation, transposition, flexible adjustment, equivalence and rewriting. Although the first three are still a bit far from the real translation, and the last "rewriting" is out of the scope of translation, making the translator another creator, their exploration is meaningful to the establishment of a scientific translation theory, and they try to apply "methodology" to the study of translation theory for the first time. But their exploration is significant for the establishment of a scientific translation theory, and for the first time they tried to apply "methodology" to the study of translation theory, so that it began to break away from the traditional fragmentary translation criticism based on intuition and experience.(Yang 1987:53)
 ===1.2 Georges Mounin===

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ==关键词==
 法国翻译理论；当代；语言学；文学
 ==Introduction==

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 Translation is practical science, and J. R. Ladmiral also constantly emphasizes the relationship between theory and practice, where abstract concepts are used to better realize practice and grasp the essence. In addition, he also points out that linguistics and semiotics are only one theoretical approach about translation, and that the multifaceted factors of translation predestine an interdisciplinary approach to research, implying an open theoretical system.
-==2. Literary Translation Theories===
+==2. Literary Translation Theories==
 In the first half of the twentieth century, strictly speaking, there was no systematic translation theory in France, but only critical discussions and scattered opinions of some writers and translators on a certain translation. Translation itself was regarded as a genre of literary aesthetics, stylistics and literary criticism. Most of the writers' comments were also from a literary point of view and are purely subjective in nature, involving more literary feelings or intuitions without any basis or examples. For example, the French poet Paul Valery thought that translation should be viewed through the eyes of a poet, and emphasized that the translator must break through the constraints of the original form, especially the syntax of the original text, so that the translation would have the same strong sense of music and literature as the original text. Generally speaking, these translation ideas lacked systematic and strictly defined concepts and terms, and belonged to a kind of "handicraft empiricism" on translation. In the second half of the 20th century, although linguistic tendencies swept through much of the translation community, a number of translation theorists focused more on the literary nature of translation and developed their own research.

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet.(1958) ''Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais''. Montréal: Beauchemin.
 Wang Dongfeng 王东风.(1999). 评《当代法国翻译理论》[J]The Comment of ''Comtemporary French Translation Theory''. ''中国翻译'' Chinese Translators Journal, 3:58-60.
@@ Line 121: / Line 123: @@
 Yang Jiangang杨建刚.(1987).法国的翻译理论研究（续）[J]The Study of Translation Theory in France(continuation). ''中国翻译'' Chinese Translators Journal, 4:53-55.
 Written by --[[User:Li Shuang|Li Shuang]] ([[User talk:Li Shuang|talk]]) 14:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 ==Conlusion==
-Any more mature theory does not arise out of thin air, but is developed through the accumulation of previous ideas, constant refinement and constant rejection. Different disciplines, different perspectives, different schools of thought, and different views have come together to form the whole of contemporary French translation theory. This paper introduces the French translation theories from the 20th century to the present in a more systematic way from the linguistic school, the literary school, the hermeneutic school and the interpretive school, and at the same time explores the origin, development and connection of translation ideas of the same school or different schools. Jean-Paul Vinay, Jean Darbelnet, Georges Mounin and Maurice Pergnier of the linguistic school share similarities in terms of translation units, meanings and linguistic syncretism. Edmond Cary and Henri Meschonnic of the literary school both insist on the view that translation is a literary activity and that the translator should have creative talent in his or her own right. In addition to the translators and translation ideas introduced in the text, there were also translation ideas in France in the 20th century that did not belong to the above four schools, such as J. Marouzeau's "On Latin Translation", in which he said that translation is first of all a skill, the most fundamental task of the translator is to reveal the content of the original work to the reader rather than its shell, and the translation must adopt a living language, etc. There are also examples such as Jean Maillot's 1969 study on the basic issues related to scientific and technical translation in Scientific and Technical Translation; the theory of teaching translation, etc. As more and more scholars join the study of translation theory, the methodological approaches to translation research have gradually increased, and the French translation community in the 21st century has begun to conduct research in the field of interpretation from a psychological perspective. Although no famous theoretical achievements have been born in the French translation field in this century, the picture of a hundred schools of thought in the future can already be seen from the historical perspective.
+Any more mature theory does not arise suddenly, but is developed through the accumulation of previous ideas, constant refinement and rejection. Different disciplines, different perspectives, different schools of thought, and different views have come together to form the whole of contemporary French translation theory. This paper introduces the French translation theories from the 20th century to the present in a more systematic way from the linguistic school, the literary school, the hermeneutic school and the interpretive school. At the same time, it explores the origin, development and connection of translation thoughts of the same school or different schools. Jean-Paul Vinay, Jean Darbelnet, Georges Mounin and Maurice Pergnier of the linguistic school share similarities in terms of translation units, meanings and linguistic universal. Edmond Cary and Henri Meschonnic of the literary school both insist on the view that translation is a literary activity and that the translator should have creative talent in his or her own right. In addition to the translators and translation thoughts introduced in the text, there were also other translation studies in France in the 20th century that did not belong to the above four schools, such as J. Marouzeau's ''On Latin Translation'', in which he said that translation was first of all a skill, the most fundamental task of the translator was to reveal the content of the original work to the reader rather than its shell, and the translation must adopt a living language, etc. There are also examples such as Jean Maillot's study in 1969 on the basic issues related to scientific and technical translation; the theory of translation teaching, etc. As more and more scholars join the study of translation theory, the methodological approaches to translation research have gradually increased. For example, the French translation community in the 21st century has begun to conduct research in the field of interpretation from a psychological perspective. Although there are no famous theoretical achievements in French translation circles in this century, we can see the picture of a hundred schools of thought contending in the future from a historical perspective.
 ==References==

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 ==4.Interpretive Theory==
-In addition to the study of text translation, the French translation community also attaches great importance to interpretation, and the International Association of Interpreters, founded in 1953, is based in Paris. The interpretive theory of translation was originally aimed at interpretation, but later it was gradually extended to translation and translation teaching. The French interpretive translation theory is a product of the pragmatic view of translation, which brings together the experience of several famous interpreters and translators, and inherits the core view of the linguistic school of translation theory of Georges Mounin, Maurice Pergnier and Albir Amparo Hurtado, that the main purpose of translation is to translate the meaning, not the linguistic shell of the original language. The main purpose of translation is to translate the meaning, not the language of the original language, and to advocate "cultural translation" in translation.（Wang Dongfeng 1999, 59）
+In addition to the study of text translation, the French translation community also attaches great importance to interpretation, and the International Association of Interpreters, founded in 1953, is based in Paris. The interpretive theory of translation was originally aimed at interpretation, but later it was gradually extended to translation and translation teaching. The French interpretive translation theory is a product of the pragmatic view of translation, which brings together the experience of several famous interpreters and translators, and inherits the core view of the linguistic school of translation theory of Georges Mounin, Maurice Pergnier and Albir Amparo Hurtado, that the main purpose of translation is to translate the meaning, not the linguistic shell of the original language and to advocate "cultural translation" in translation.（Wang 1999:59）
-Danica Séleskovitch, director of the Higher School of Translation at the University of Paris III, is the founder of the interpretive school of translation theory. She published "Interpreting at International Conferences" in 1968. This book combined the author's many years of experience in interpreting, and through concrete examples, discussed the theoretical and technical issues related to simultaneous interpretation and simultaneous interpreting from various aspects such as comprehension, instruction and expression, laying the foundation for the development of the theory of interpretation. Later, in 1978, the École Supérieure de Traducteurs de Paris also adopted two doctoral dissertations on the subject of interpretation studies, and in 1981, Marianne Lederer published Simultaneous Interpreting, another important monograph exploring the theory of interpretation. In addition to the analysis of experience, she focuses on the relationship between the use of discoures, the theory of meaning and its understanding, and simultaneous interpretation, using the results of linguistics, which reflects the main ideas of the "interpretation theory of meaning. Danica Séleskovitch in "Interpretors at International Conferences" says that interpreters and translators are painters, not photographers, and that painting is "distills the meaning and message consistent with reality from the reality to be represented with the help of the painter's view". The object of translation is not the independent language itself, but should be the meaning or the chapter expressed with the help of language. This meaning does not refer to the meaning of words or sentences out of context; meaning includes content and emotion, and meaning cannot be divorced from the subject. The theory of interpretation also proposes a translation procedure: comprehension, detachment from the linguistic shell of the original language and re-expression.(Yang 1987:45;Danica 1986:5)
+Danica Séleskovitch, director of ESIT(Ecole Supérieure d'Interprètes et de Traducteurs), is the founder of the interpretive school of translation theory. She published ''Interpreters at International Conferences'' in 1968. This book combined the author's experience in interpreting, and through concrete examples, discussed the theoretical and technical issues related to simultaneous interpretation from various aspects such as comprehension, instruction and expression, laying the foundation for the development of the theory of interpretation. Later, in 1978, the ESIT also adopted two doctoral dissertations on the subject of interpretation studies, and in 1981, Marianne Lederer published ''Simultaneous Interpreting'', another important monograph exploring the theory of interpretation. In addition to the analysis of experience, she focused on the relationship between the use of discoures, the theory of meaning and its understanding, and simultaneous interpretation, using the results of linguistics, which reflected the main ideas of the "interpretation theory of meaning". Danica Séleskovitch in ''Interpreters at International Conferences'' said that interpreters and translators were painters, not photographers, and that painting was "distills the meaning and message consistent with reality from the reality to be represented with the help of the painter's view". The object of translation is not the independent language itself, but should be the meaning or the chapter expressed with the help of language. This meaning does not refer to the meaning of words or sentences out of context; it includes content and emotion, and cannot be divorced from the subject. The theory of interpretation also proposes a translation procedure: comprehension, detachment from the linguistic shell of the original language and re-expression.(Yang 1987:45;Danica 1986:5)
-Although the theory of interpretation focuses on the conveyance of chapter meaning, and the translator can express it in the way he or she thinks appropriate after understanding the original text, it does not mean that the translator has absolute freedom, and this limit is more reflected in the aesthetic requirements of literary translation in terms of form.
+Although interpretive theory focuses on the transmission of textual meaning, and the translator can express it in his own way after understanding the original text, it does not mean that the translator has absolute freedom, which is more reflected in the formal aesthetic requirements of literary translation.
 ==Conlusion==

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 ==3.Translation Theory of Hermeneutics==
-Antoine Berman is a leading contemporary French theorist and translator of Latin American literature and German philosophy, known for his consistent philosophical stance in translation studies. He advocates the rejection of ethnocentrism in translation and opposes the "localization" of translations through distortion and adaptation. His major works are L'épreuve de l'étranger, culture et traduction dans l'Allemagne romantique and Pour une critique des traductions, John Donne. The former is an excavation of German translation activities and translation theories since Luther, while the latter is an attempt to theorize the spontaneous and confusing translation criticism with modern hermeneutics as its philosophical foundation.(Xie 2008:113)
+Antoine Berman is a leading contemporary French theorist and translator of Latin American literature and German philosophy, known for his consistent philosophical stance in translation studies. He advocated the rejection of ethnocentrism in translation and opposed the "localization" of translations through distortion and adaptation. His major works are ''L'épreuve de l'étranger, culture et traduction dans l'Allemagne romantique'' and ''Pour une critique des traductions, John Donne''. The former is an excavation of German translation activities and translation theories since Luther, while the latter is an attempt to theorize the spontaneous and confusing translation criticism with modern hermeneutics as its philosophical foundation.(Xie 2008:113)
-Antoine Berman's philosophy of translation is closely related to hermeneutics, and he follows Schleiermacher, the founder of classical German hermeneutics, in his view of alienation in which the reader of the translation influences the author, while also incorporating his experience as a translator. In "The Test of Otherness," he refers to "the test" as having two meanings: first, the test of foreign words and texts experienced by the target culture in receiving the translation; second, the test of survival in the new environment after the foreign text has been removed from its original context. Antoine Berman blames previous translations for pursuing a high degree of reader acceptance, overly suppressing the element of "difference" and "localizing" it. He argues that the ethical goal of the act of translation should be "to accept the different as different," and that the system of textual distortion prevents the entry of the different. He analyzes in detail the various types of deformation tendencies in translations (mainly translations of literary prose, novels and essays) and classifies them into 12 types: rationalization, clarification, expansion, elegance and vulgarization, loss of quality, lack of quantity, destruction of rhythm, destruction of the potential indicative network of the original, destruction of linguistic patterns, destruction of dialectal networks or their exoticism, destruction of fixed expressions and the destruction of idioms and the elimination of multilingual overlap. His analysis of these deformations is divided into two categories: negative and positive parsing. Negative parsing focuses on ethnocentric and annexationist translations, as well as hypertextual translations (e.g., parodies, imitations, adaptations, and arbitrary rewrites of works). The positive analysis refers to the analysis of translations that restore and embody the "other". He points out that his analysis is concerned with the general principle of distortion inherent in translation, that the tendency to distort mentioned in the text is ancient, and that Western translations have been from the beginning a revisionary restoration of meaning. Although Antoine Berman does not accuse this, he argues that it is more valuable to work on the literal aspects of translation than on the recovery of meaning. Formally by working on the literal, translation restores the distinctive indicative process of the work, not only the meaning, on the one hand, and changes the transliterated language on the other. It is translation that stimulates the generation and regeneration of the Western language. Therefore, he advocates a literal direct translation and believes that a good translation should pay respect to the "otherness" in the language and culture of the original work.(Xie 2008:114-133)
+Antoine Berman's philosophy of translation is closely related to hermeneutics, and he followed Schleiermacher, the founder of classical German hermeneutics, in his view of alienation, and also incorporated his experience as a translator. In ''The Trial of the Foreign'', he refered to "the test" as having two meanings: first, the trial of foreign words and texts experienced by the target culture in receiving the translation; second, the trial of survival in the new environment after the foreign text has been removed from its original context. Antoine Berman blamed previous translations for pursuing a high degree of reader acceptance, overly suppressing the element of "difference" and "natrualizing" it. He argued that the ethical goal of the act of translation should be "to accept the different as different," and that the system of textual distortion prevented the entry of the different. He analyzed in detail the various types of deformation tendencies in translations (mainly translations of literary prose, novels and essays) and classifies them into 12 types: rationalization, clarification, expansion, ennoblement and popularization, qualitative impoverishment, quantitative impoverishment, the destruction of rhythm, the destruction of underlying networks of signification, the destruction of linguistic patternings, the destruction of vernacular networks or their exoticization, the destruction of expressions and idioms and the effacement of the superimposition languages. His analysis of these deformations is divided into two categories: negative and positive parsing. Negative parsing focuses on ethnocentric and annexationist translations, as well as hypertextual translations (parodies, imitations, adaptations, and arbitrary rewrites of works). The positive analysis refers to the analysis of translations that restore and embody the "foreign". He pointed out that his analysis was concerned with the general principle of distortion inherent in translation, that the tendency to distort mentioned in the text was ancient, and that Western translations have been from the beginning a revisionary restoration of meaning. Although Antoine Berman did not accuse this, he argued that it was more valuable to work on the literal aspects of translation than on the recovery of meaning. Formally by working on the literal, translation restores the distinctive indicative process of the work, not only the meaning, but also changes the target language on the other hand. It is translation that stimulates the generation and regeneration of the Western language. Therefore, he advocated a literal direct translation and believes that a good translation should pay respect to the "foreign" in the language and culture of the original work.(Xie 2008:114-133)
 ==4.Interpretive Theory==

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 ==2. Literary Translation Theories===
-In the first half of the twentieth century, there was no systematic translation theory in France in the strict sense of the word, but only critical discussions and scattered opinions of some writers and translators on a certain translation. Translation itself was regarded as a genre of literary aesthetics, stylistics and literary criticism. Most of the writers' comments are also from a literary point of view and are purely subjective in nature, involving more literary feelings or intuitions without any basis or examples. For example, the French poet Paul Valery thinks that translation should be viewed through the eyes of a poet, and emphasizes that the translator must break through the constraints of the original form, especially the syntax of the original text, so that the translation will have the same strong sense of music and literature as the original text. Generally speaking, these translation ideas lacked systematic and strictly defined concepts and terms, and belonged to a kind of "craft empiricism" on translation. In the second half of the 20th century, although linguistic tendencies swept through much of the translation community, a number of translation theorists focused more on the literary nature of translation and developed their own research.
+In the first half of the twentieth century, strictly speaking, there was no systematic translation theory in France, but only critical discussions and scattered opinions of some writers and translators on a certain translation. Translation itself was regarded as a genre of literary aesthetics, stylistics and literary criticism. Most of the writers' comments were also from a literary point of view and are purely subjective in nature, involving more literary feelings or intuitions without any basis or examples. For example, the French poet Paul Valery thought that translation should be viewed through the eyes of a poet, and emphasized that the translator must break through the constraints of the original form, especially the syntax of the original text, so that the translation would have the same strong sense of music and literature as the original text. Generally speaking, these translation ideas lacked systematic and strictly defined concepts and terms, and belonged to a kind of "handicraft empiricism" on translation. In the second half of the 20th century, although linguistic tendencies swept through much of the translation community, a number of translation theorists focused more on the literary nature of translation and developed their own research.
 ===2.1Edmond Cary===
-Edmond Cary was a full-time translator for UNESCO, the head of the French Translators Association, and an active advocate and organizer of the International Federation of Translators. His major works include "Translation in the Modern World", "The Translator in France", "On the Quality of Translation", and two important articles "Translation Theory in the Soviet Union" and "Poetry and Translation" published in the journal Babel. This series of articles and writings have made positive contributions to the promotion of translation theory research.
+Edmond Cary was a full-time translator for UNESCO, the head of the French Translators Association, and an active advocate and organizer of the International Federation of Translators. His major works include ''Translation in the Modern World'', ''The French Translators'', ''On the Quality of Translation'', and two important articles ''Translation Theory in the Soviet Union'' and ''Poetry and Translation'' published in the journal ''Babel''. This series of articles and writings have made positive contributions to the promotion of translation theory research.
-Edmond Cary's main ideas are embodied in Translation in the Modern World, an exhaustive survey summarizing the various forms of translation in the 20th century, briefly describing the history of each form and providing a meaningful classification of translation. His central conception of translation is reflected in his view of its nature as not a science but an art, and an art that varies according to the discipline involved. Distinguishing himself from the linguistic views of his Soviet contemporaries, Fedorov believed that although translation involved linguistic statements, literary translation was not a linguistic activity, but a literary one. To translate poetry, the translator himself needed to have the talent of writing poetry; to translate plays, one had to focus on the dramatic art to meet the requirements of the performance; to translate films was a cinematic art activity, and the choice of words and phrases had to respect the actors' diction, speech flow, movements and the film's music, picture and visual prescribed scenario, and even the social reaction of the group audience, etc. These are things that in his opinion cannot be explained by linguistics. But this is actually an extreme description of a correct view. On the one hand, he only saw the nature of literature in translation, and on the other hand, he had a very limited understanding of linguistics, thinking that linguistics is all about depicting language in its various features in isolation from all other factors, focusing on formal analysis and avoiding meaning, not distinguishing between ordinary linguistics and descriptive linguistics, and not knowing that there actually existed stylistics devoted to the study of translation, which was his concern.(Yang 1987:46;Edmond Cary 1986:8;Georges Mounin 1963:14）
+Edmond Cary's main ideas are embodied in ''Translation in the Modern World'', an exhaustive survey summarizing the various forms of translation in the 20th century, briefly describing the history of each form and providing a meaningful classification of translation. His central conception of translation is reflected in his view of its nature as not a kind of science but an kind of art, and the art that varies according to the discipline involved. Distinguishing himself from the linguistic views of his Soviet contemporaries, Fedorov believed that although translation involved linguistic statements, literary translation was not a linguistic activity, but a literary one. To translate poetry, the translator himself needed to have the talent of writing poetry; to translate plays, one had to focus on the dramatic art to meet the requirements of the performance; to translate films was a cinematic art activity, and the choice of words and phrases had to respect the actors' diction, speech flow, movements and the film's music, picture and visual prescribed scenario, and even the social reaction of the group audience, etc. These are things that in his opinion cannot be explained by linguistics. But this is actually an extreme description of a correct view. On the one hand, he only saw the nature of literature in translation, and on the other hand, he had a very limited understanding of linguistics, thinking that linguistics is all about depicting language in its various features in isolation from all other factors, focusing on formal analysis and avoiding meaning, not distinguishing between general linguistics and descriptive linguistics, and not knowing that there actually existed stylistics devoted to the study of translation, which was his concern.(Yang 1987:46;Edmond Cary 1986:8;Georges Mounin 1963:14）
-Edmond Cary is a pioneering figure in the development of French translation theory, and he was one of the first translators to begin a comprehensive and systematic examination of translation activities, and his efforts have contributed greatly to the study of French translation theory.
+Edmond Cary was a pioneering figure in the development of French translation theories, and he was one of the first translators who began a comprehensive and systematic examination of translation activities, and his efforts have contributed greatly to the study of French translation theories.
 ===2.2Henri Meschonnic===
-Henri Meschonnic is a famous French translator, linguist, literary scholar and critical thinker. Influenced by Western philosophical thought and Russian formalist poetics, he put more emphasis on the literary and artistic aspects of translations, and proposed a "poetics of translation" in his 1973 book "Poetics - Creative Understanding and Poetics of Translation". The Ethics and Politics of Translation," published in 2007, can be said to be a sequel to "The Poetics of Translation" and an overview of his core ideas.
+Henri Meschonnic is a famous French translator, linguist, literary scholar and critical thinker. Influenced by Western philosophical thoughts and Russian formalist poetics, he put more emphasis on the literary and artistic aspects of translations, and proposed a "poetics of translation" in his book ''Poetics - Creative Understanding and Poetics of Translation''. ''The Ethics and Politics of Translation''published in 2007, can be said to be a sequel to "The Poetics of Translation" and an overview of his core ideas.
-In Poetics - Creative Understanding and the Poetics of Translation, Henri Meschonnic puts forward 36 propositions related to the poetics of translation, and focuses on criticizing Neda's theory of translation constructed using generative transformation theory and structuralist semantics. First of all, he considers the translation of a work as an activity that is always "above the language", a "reading creation", a "historical encounter" of a certain subject. In the past, the idea that the traces of translation could not be seen in a translation was the real reason for the intranslatability of the work, which was the result of the diametrical opposition between creation and translation. Translation should be a "reformulation" of a particular form of the historical theme, an "interplay of two poetics", a "shift of center". Therefore, he believes that Neda's theory is not a science of translation, because it excludes all literary works from translation and only addresses language as a medium of information exchange. The poetic theory of the value and meaning of a work is a deeper and more comprehensive theoretical system than linguistics. The poetics of translation is based on the theory of understanding the work as a whole. In addition, in the view of the "historicity" of translation, he also says that the Maodun between the original language and the translated language, between the times and the era, and between the culture and the culture is to use the poetics of translation to arrive at a historical and objective explanation. In response to other scholars' criticism that creative translation is not faithful to the original, Henri Meschonnic refutes this notion as a prejudice and ignorance. The translation of a creative work is a "shift of center" that creates the reader, not, in turn, the translation in response to the reader's taste. The function of translation is a poetic and cultural generative transformation. He argues that the problem with this kind of generative translation is that it is not faithful to the original text, and that the problem is that it does not see the importance of the value and meaning of the work beyond the language, but rather pursues the so-called connotation that is opposed to the form. Moreover, he points out that non-creative translations are limited by the possibilities of the times, which are manifested in the comprehension of the readers of the translation, and lead to the situation that the translation becomes obsolete and needs to be re-translated. Only a translation as a creation can be equal in value to a work and will not become obsolete with time.（Xu and Yuan 1998:138-140）
+In ''Poetics - Creative Understanding and the Poetics of Translation'', Henri Meschonnic put forward 36 propositions related to the poetics of translation, and focused on criticizing Nida's theory of translation constructed using generative transformation theory and structuralist semantics. First of all, he considerd the translation of a work as an activity that was always "above the language", a "reading creation", a "historical encounter" of a certain subject. In the past, the idea that the traces of translation could not be seen in a translation was the real reason for the intranslatability of the work, which was the result of the diametrical opposition between creation and translation. Translation should be a "reformulation" of a particular form of the historical theme, an "interplay of two poetics", a "shift of center". Therefore, he believed that Nida's theory was not the science of translation, because it excluded all literary works from translation and only addressed language as a medium of information exchange. The poetic theory of the value and meaning of a work is a deeper and more comprehensive theoretical system than linguistics. The poetics of translation is based on the theory of understanding the work as a whole. In addition, in the view of the "historicity" of translation, he also said that the conflicts between the source language and the translated language, between the times and the era, and between cultures are to use the poetics of translation to arrive at a historical and objective explanation. In response to other scholars' criticism that creative translation was not faithful to the original, Henri Meschonnic refuted this notion as a prejudice and ignorance. The translation of a creative work is a "shift of center" that creates the reader, not, in turn, the translation in response to the reader's taste. The function of translation is a poetic and cultural generative transformation. He argued that the problem with this kind of generative translation was that it was not faithful to the original text, and that the problem was that it does not see the importance of the value and meaning of the work beyond the language, but rather pursued the so-called connotation that was opposed to the form. Moreover, he pointed out that non-creative translations were limited by the possibilities of the times, which were manifested in the comprehension of the readers of the translation, and leaded to the situation that the translation became obsolete and needed to be re-translated. Only a translation as a creation can be equal in value to a work and will not become obsolete with time.（Xu and Yuan 1998:138-140）
 Although Henri Meschonnic has always emphasized that translation should not be interpreted by linguistics, he has actually not been able to escape the influence of linguistics, not to mention that the development of Western poetics has been a journey of continuous linguistic integration. However, his exploration of translation theory from a literary perspective has opened up a new direction for translation studies to a certain extent.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:07, 16 December 2021
Line 61:		Line 61:

	In fact, from the concept of "idiom" and other discussions on the relationship between vocabulary and translation, meaning and reference, grammar, and linguistic syncretism in ''The Sociolinguistic Foundations of Translation'', it is easy to see that he was influenced by Georges Mounin, especially the study of world image, linguistic syncretism and translation. There is no breakthrough. However, he uses the research results of sociolinguistics to study translation more comprehensively, broadening the methodological means of translation studies and making up for the deficiency of using structural linguistics to depict pure language.		In fact, from the concept of "idiom" and other discussions on the relationship between vocabulary and translation, meaning and reference, grammar, and linguistic syncretism in ''The Sociolinguistic Foundations of Translation'', it is easy to see that he was influenced by Georges Mounin, especially the study of world image, linguistic syncretism and translation. There is no breakthrough. However, he uses the research results of sociolinguistics to study translation more comprehensively, broadening the methodological means of translation studies and making up for the deficiency of using structural linguistics to depict pure language.
		+
		+	===1.4 J. R. Ladmiral===
		+	J. R. Ladmiral is one of the few who can think systematically about the translation theory as a philosopher, and he divided his research into three stages: traductographie, traductologie and traductosophie. His translation theory inherits Georges Mounin's linguistic position and combines it with his own practical experience in translation and teaching of Franco-German philosophy. In his own words, his translation theory is productive, because in his view, all theoretical work nowadays is aimed at providing translators with "theoretical elements of translation", thus solving practical problems and reducing the difficulty of translation activities.(Yu 2003:13)
		+
		+	He believes that the definition of translation depends on the different perspectives of the definers, and can be divided into translation and interpretation from the professional perspective, or direct translation and translation from the linguistic perspective. His focus is on "connotation". Based on Yemtslev's definition and the results of semiotic research, J. R. Ladmiral believes that the composition of connotator provides an excellent theoretical basis for translation research. Once the connotational meaning of the original text is correctly identified by the translator, then the translator has the right to freely choose the connotational carrier of the target language without having to antiquate the form of the connotational carrier of the departure language. This is because the connotative carrier of the source language itself is of a different structure from that of the extended linguistic unit. The key is to reproduce the meaning of the connotation of the source language in the target language. However, even so, J. R. Ladmiral believes that translation can only be partially realized, which itself implies the inevitable loss of part of the information. The translator can only selectively convey the message according to the purpose of the translation, based on his own and the reader's cultural level and the presumed reader's familiarity with the original language and culture.(J. R. Ladmiral 1979:190)
		+
		+	Translation is practical science, and J. R. Ladmiral also constantly emphasizes the relationship between theory and practice, where abstract concepts are used to better realize practice and grasp the essence. In addition, he also points out that linguistics and semiotics are only one theoretical approach about translation, and that the multifaceted factors of translation predestine an interdisciplinary approach to research, implying an open theoretical system.

	==2. Literary Translation Theories===		==2. Literary Translation Theories===