Revision as of 06:37, 16 December 2021

History of Translation Theories

Overview Page of History of Translation Theories

30 Chapters（0/30)

Back to translation project overview Zur To-Do-Liste

Chapter 8: History of Translation Theories of France from 20th Century to the Present

20世纪至今的法国翻译理论史

李双 Li Shuang, Hunan Normal University, China

Abstract

Translation activities have a long history in France and its theories occupy an important position in the West. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the emancipation of the mind, the progress of science and technology and the transformation of society have reinvigorated the study of French translation theory and entered its heyday. This paper first summarizes the development of French translation studies from the 20th century to the present, then discusses the main translation theories of this period from the perspectives of translation and interpretation, and analyzes the influence of the society and other disciplines on the formation of the theories. Finally, it aims to have a clearer and comprehensive understanding of the development of contemporary French translation theories.

Key word

French translation theories;contemporary;linguistic;literary

摘要

法国的翻译活动历史悠久，其理论也在西方翻译理论中占有重要位置。自20世纪初，思想的解放、科技的进步与社会的变革为法国翻译理论的研究重新带来活力，进入鼎盛时期。本文先从整体上梳理20世纪至今法国翻译研究的发展脉络，再分别从笔译和口译方向论述该时期的主要翻译理论并分析社会、学科知识对理论形成的影响，最终旨在对当代法国翻译理论的发展有更清晰全面的认识。

关键词

法国翻译理论；当代；语言学；文学

Correction: 法国翻译理论；现代；语言学；文学--Yang Kun (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

Language is one of the symbols of human civilization and an important feature of every nation. Language exchange is accompanied by the beginning of translation activities, which has a long history. Translation theory that comes from practices guides and refines translation activities in turn. As a big western country, France has made a mark in its history both in terms of politics and economy and in terms of culture and ideology. Its translation activities were initially concentrated in the Latin works at the end of the Middle Age, but there were no articles or works devoted to translation theory at this time. With the rise, development and gradual maturity of translation, more and more experts and scholars began to study systematically the translation and put forward their own theoretical propositions. The 20th century has been the heyday of French translation theory. The characteristics of French translation in this period are as follows: the practice of translation was unprecedented prosperous, covering politics, economy, military affairs, culture, literature and other aspects. The study of translation theory was unprecedented, and theorists who had great influence on the history of translation in the world have emerged.It was in the 1970s that ‘translatology’ began to formally exist as an independent discipline. In addition to the traditional study of theories focusing on traslation, France has made great achievements in the field of interpretation theory. The International Association of Interpreters is based in Paris.(Chen 2014:80)

The study of French translation theory in China is relatively late, and basically began in the 1990s. One of the main achievements is The Contemporary French Translation Theory compiled by Xu Jun and Yuan Xiaoyi, which systematically reviews the theories of translators in the second half of the 20th century, led by Georges Mounin, and makes important comments on various translation schools. Yang Jiangang from Wuhan University also sorts out the three stages of French translation studies in the 20th century and briefly introduces several major translators and their theories in the article French Translation Theory. Chen Shunyi from the School of Foreign Studies of Guangzhou University has also combed French translation theory, which he divided into five stages: origin, development, maturity, silence and prosperity. He has briefly summarized the history of French translation and introduced the famous translators and their thoughts or theories in different periods.

On the basis of predecessors and combined with translation practice, this paper aims to study the origin and development of translation theories in France since the 20th century, and make a better summary of the relationship between various ideological schools and theories.

1.Translation Theories of School of Linguistics

At the beginning of the 20th century, Saussure,the "father of modern linguistics",his General Linguistics was published. It was a landmark work that introduced new theories, principles and concepts of language and laid the scientific foundation for the study of language and the development of linguistics. As a special and universal language activity, the study of translation was often regarded as a branch of linguistics in the early period. Although translation is actually more of a communicative activity involving various fields such as language, culture, art, aesthetics, and psychology, it is closely related to other disciplines besides linguistics such as cultural studies, literary theory, philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, and ethnography. However, in the intellectual context of the times, the emergence of linguistics was the first to give translation studies a scientific and systematic research method, and it has an important influence even today, as well as being the science that has contributed most to translation studies.(Wang 1999:58)

Correction:At the beginning of the 20th century, Saussure,the "father of modern linguistics",his "General Linguistics" was published.--Yang Kun (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

1.1Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet

In the Western translation theory circles, Фёдоров（Fedorov） of the former Soviet Union was the first to systematically propose that translation theory research should belong to the scope of linguistic research. In his Outline of Translation Theory published in 1953, he clearly pointed out that the process of translation is the process of using language, therefore, in translation, language issues should be put on the top priority, and believed that translation research should be studied from the perspective of linguistics in the first place, and claimed that only by adopting linguistic research means can the rules and essence of translation be explained scientifically. After him, the Frenchmen Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, who moved to Canada, actively supported his view and proposed that "translation is a real discipline with its own special techniques and problems", which should be analyzed by linguistic means. In 1958, they co-authored A Comparative Study of French-English Rhetoric, which was published in Paris, marking a new beginning of the theoretical study of translation in France. Since then, the linguistic theory of translation has been gradually formed in France. People began to examine the theoretical issues related to translation in a more systematic and penetrating way, taking the research results of modern linguistics as a guide.(Xu and Yuan 1998:21;Vinay and Darbelnet 1958:23;Yang 1987:45)

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".

Correction: the expression of their translation thoughts was mainly in France--Yang Kun (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

1.2 Georges Mounin

From Jean-Paul Vinay's and Jean Darbelnet's and Fedorov's appeals for translation, the famous linguist, translator and literary critic Georges Mounin saw a new beginning for translation studies, but he also found that if translation is to receive the same attention from the language sciences as the phenomena of bilingualism, language contact, linguistic geography or etymology It was not an easy task to make translation receive the same attention as bilingualism, language contact, linguistic geography or etymology. Moreover, in addition to the rejection by the linguistic community, many translators do not accept this concept, insisting that translation is an art and that literary translation in particular cannot be thoroughly interpreted from a linguistic point of view. Georges Mounin looked dialectically at the two camps of the translation community at that time, without going to either extreme, and he believed that translation was an art based on a science. Although he supported the views of Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet regarding the nature of translation, and believed that the scientific study of translation should become a branch of linguistics, he also pointed out that the translation of literary works such as novels, poems, plays, and films was not a linguistic activity that could be solved by the scientific analysis of vocabulary, morphology, and syntactic style alone, and that translation is special.(Xu and Yuan 1998:22)

Correction:Georges Murnand;George Moonan---Georges Mounin--Yang Kun (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Georges Mounin can be regarded as the founder and main representative of the linguistic theory of French translation in the real sense. He has put forward many major topics related to translation research. Although he has not given answers and developed a formed theory, he has made great contributions to the discussion of translation theoretical problems and the study of translation obstacles and feasibility.

Correction: George Mounin can be regarded as the founder and main representative of the linguistic theory of French translation in the real sense. He has put forward many major topics related to translation research. Although he has not given answers and developed a formed theory, he has made great contributions to the discussion of translation theoretical problems and the study of translation obstacles and feasibility.--Yang Kun (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In 1953, he published Les Belles infidèles, which was mainly a summary of his own experience and that of other translators and writers in translating from other languages into French, and although it was guided by the linguistic theory of Fandès (the theory of the progress of language), its basic starting point was to examine translation from a stylistic and literary point of view. Between 1956 and 1958, Georges Mounin came into contact with André Martinet's structural linguistic theory, which prompted him to rethink the problem of translation from the perspective of structural linguistics.(Yang 1987:54)

His national doctoral dissertation, which is also his classic masterpiece, Les Problèmes théoriques de la traduction, was published in Paris in 1963 and has had a profound influence on the French translation theory community that continues to this day. In this book, he explored the feasibility of translation from the perspectives of meaning, world reflection, levels of communication, and linguistic cohomology. From the perspective of linguistic syncretism, according to the French linguist Martinet's idea of cosmic syncretism ("all people inhabit the same planet" and we can expect to find certain similarities in the various "national languages"), Georges Mounin believes that there must be linguistic syncretism. Georges Mounin believes that there must be a linguistic cohomology. This is because in the activity of translation, due to the ecological commonality embedded in the cosmic commonality, the underlying reference meaning should be the same, and the frame of reference of the external world should be the same. In other words, the co-phase of languages or the similarity existing among languages is a necessary result of the existence of cosmic, ecological, physiological and psychological co-phase phenomena. This directly explains the feasibility of translation, but from the perspective of the "world image" theory, he explains the limits of translation. Because people in different societies experience the same thing differently, the semantic portrayal of that thing naturally differs as well. Georges Mounin found that each language cuts different aspects of reality (ignoring what another language reveals, discovering what another language neglects, etc.) and that there are differences in the units that cut into the same reality. Thus, he points out that we must admit that the structure of the universe is far from being logically and universally consistent in all languages, and that these ineradicable differences, although calculated as a whole, constitute only a limited percentage, still constitute an obstacle to translation. He was the first to state explicitly that "translation is possible, but it does have limits". He has a clearer explanation of this from the perspective of communication level, in which contemporary linguistics plays an important role in his analysis and research. Contemporary linguistics defines and distinguishes between multiple functions of language: the basic communicative function, the instrumental function of logical thinking, the flow of emotional elements, the expressive or even communicative function, and the aesthetic function. Each linguistic function in the same statement can establish a network of communication at different levels, which depend both on the statement itself and on the experience of each listener. The realization of different levels of the act of communication implies that there are also different levels of translation, which clarifies even more the feasibility and limits of translation. In addition, Georges Mounin also points out that the feasibility of translation activities also depends to a great extent on the contact and communication between different cultures, and the level of communication of ideas that translation activities can achieve is changing and developing. As for the "meaning" that translators need to face in translation activities, he is influenced by Saussure's view of naming (naming as a "system") and the idea of the value of words, and he has moved away from the traditional "categorical naming set "He realized that the relationship between words and concepts in the whole language system is not an innate one-to-one correspondence, and that the meaning of words is not a simple assignment, so that the translation activity is not a simple transformation of the meaning of words, but involves the whole language system. This is a scientific explanation of why "word-to-word translation is not possible".(Xu and Yuan 1998:27-52)

Correction: He has a clearer explanation of this from the perspective of communication level, in which contemporary linguistics plays an important role in his analysis and research.--Yang Kun (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

As a distinguished linguist, Georges Mounin is more adept at studying issues related to translation from a linguistic approach. However, translation is a complex activity involving multiple levels and factors, a feature that defines the comprehensive nature of translation theory research. He has also explored the permeability of different cultures and the communicability of semantics from the perspective of other disciplines such as ethnography and bibliography, and even this comprehensive exploration has a clear linguistic tendency. Although he did not form a complete scientific system, it is undeniable that some of his basic understanding and perspectives on translation and translation theory are useful for later generations to conduct systematic scientific research.

1.3 Maurice Pergnier

Maurice Pergnier has taught translation theory at ESIT (the third higher college of Paris) for many years. He is also a professor at the 12th University of Paris. He has directed several multidisciplinary research institutions in the University. He has written many articles in the fields of theoretical and applied linguistics, artistic semiotics and poetics. He passed the national doctoral thesis "sociolinguistic basis of translation" in December 1976 , this is the second national doctoral dissertation focusing on translation theory after George Munin. It is another important work to explore the basic theoretical issues of translation from the perspective of modern linguistics.

Correction:Maurice Pergnier has taught translation theory at esit (the third higher college of Paris) for many years. He is also a professor at the 12th University of Paris. He has directed several multidisciplinary research institutions in the University. He has written many articles in the fields of theoretical and applied linguistics, artistic semiotics and poetics. He passed the national doctoral thesis "sociolinguistic basis of translation" in December 1976 , this is the second national doctoral dissertation focusing on translation theory after George Munin. It is another important work to explore the basic theoretical issues of translation from the perspective of modern linguistics. (Yang Jiangang, 45)--Yang Kun (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The study of sociolinguistics focuses on the communicative nature of language, and the main object of study is speech rather than language; function rather than structure; context rather than information itself; and language acceptability rather than language arbitrariness. Maurice Pergnier uses sociolinguistic principles to link "information parametres" to translation, which is of great significance for translation research. There is no single occurrence of information, and all information cannot exist independently of the external environment background. Based on this, he proposes four parameters of the process of sending information: the sending subject, the sending object, the receiver and the sending medium. So the process of information transmission is the process that the sending subject transmits the sending object to the receiver through the sending medium. These four parameters are closely related to the generation and reception of information, and when any one of them changes, the information transmission will be changed and the meaning of the whole statement will be changed. Projected into the translation activity, the translator is both the receiver of the original text and the sending subject of the translation, and the sending object goes through the process of decoding first and then encoding. In addition to these four parameters, Maurice Pergnier identifies four linguistic variables that influence the transfer of information in the overall linguistic context: phonological variables, lexical variables, grammatical variables, and declarative structures. Language is socially constructed and these linguistic variables vary according to the social context or genre, making it impossible to communicate directly through a homogeneous bridge. By examining the linguistic environment from these four perspectives, it is possible to receive information and feedback more accurately and to address barriers in communication activities.(Xu and Yuan 1998:96-98)

In addition, Maurice Pergnier argues that the original language and the translated language, which are the medium of the translation activity, have an influence on each other when they come into contact with each other, thus creating linguistic interference. That is, the linguistic structure of the original language affects the translator so that he or she cannot express the meaning of the original in a natural translation. This is because the translator does not consider the whole statement as a message in the translation process, but as a field, focusing on the meaning of scattered words. In fact, the meaning of language is not only expressed in grammar, but also in practical use, and he proposed the concept of "idiomatic unit", which refers to the overall denotative meaning, although an idiom consists of several words, it is equivalent to the meaning of only one word. Therefore, when a translator is given a passage of the original text, he should first divide it into idiomatic units, and only when the idiomatic units are correctly divided can he understand the meaning of the original text correctly. The more the two cultures are close to each other, the more the translator understands the socio-cultural background of the two languages, and the more the idioms can be classified correctly.(Xu and Yuan 1998:102)

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.

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.

Correction: "craft empiricism"--"handicraft empiricism"--Yang Kun (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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'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 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.

Correction: 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.--Yang Kun (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

Correction: 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 1973 book "Poetics - Creative Understanding and Poetics of Translation".--Yang Kun (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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）

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.

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'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)

Correction: Positive analysis refers to the analysis of the translated version that restores and embodies the "difference".--Yang Kun (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Correction:Therefore, he advocates literal translation, and believes that an excellent translation should respect the "differences" in the language and culture of the original.--Yang Kun (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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）

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)

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.

Correction: 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.--Yang Kun (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

Correction: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.--Yang Kun (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Chen Shunyi 陈顺意.(2014). 法国翻译理论源流[J]The Source of French Translation Theory. 法国研究 French Studies, 94:78-81.

Danica Séleskovitch (1986) L’interprète dans les conférences internationales, problèmes de langage et de communication. Paris : Lettres modernes Minard.

Edmond Cary.(1986). Comment faut-il traduire?. Lille: P.U.L.

Georges Mounin.(1963). Les Problèmes théoriques de la traduction. Paris: Gallimard.

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.

Xie Tianzhen 谢天振.(2008). 当代国外翻译理论导读[M]Introduction to Contemporary Foreign Translation Theory. Tianjin：Nankai University Press南开大学出版社.

Xu Jun and Yuan Xiaoyi 许钧袁筱一.(1998). 当代法国翻译理论[M]Comtemporary French Translation Theory. Nanjing：Nanjing University Press南京大学出版社.

Yang Jiangang杨建刚.(1987).法国的翻译理论研究（上）[J]The Study of Translation Theory in France. 中国翻译 Chinese Translators Journal, 3:44-46.

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 --Li Shuang (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 On the basis of predecessors and combined with translation practice, this paper aims to study the origin and development of translation theories in France since the 20th century, and make a better summary of the relationship between various ideological schools and theories.
-'''Correction''': On the basis of predecessors and combined with translation practice, this paper aims to study the origin and development of translation theories in France since the 20th century, and make a better summary of the relationship between various ideological schools and theories.--[[User:Yang Kun|Yang Kun]] ([[User talk:Yang Kun|talk]]) 15:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 ==1.Translation Theories of School of Linguistics==

Difference between revisions of "Hist Trans Theo EN 9"