Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page204

asanattemptto‘translate’otherculturesintoEurope’sservilecopies,research

thathasnomorethanatangentialrelationtointerlingualtranslationcaneasilybe

incorporatedintothefield.Thisiswhymanyessayswhichmightmoreproperly

belongto‘postcolonialstudies’havefoundtheirwayintovolumesofcollected

essayson‘postcolonialtranslationstudies’.

Inlinewiththisallembracing,metaphoricaluseof‘translation’,theconceptof

CULTURALTRANSLATIONhasalsobecomepopular;Robinson(1997a:

43)defines‘culturaltranslation’astheprocess‘notoftranslatingspecific

culturaltextsbutofconsolidatingawidevarietyofculturaldiscoursesintoa

targettextthatinsomesensehasno“original”,nosourcetext’.This

developmentthreatenstounderminethespecificityoftranslationstudiesby

expandingittoincludepracticallyallformsofrepresentationanddiscourses.In

addition,itintroducesacertainlevelofconfusionandovergeneralizationinto

somediscussionsoftranslation.Forexample,incritiquingWilliamJones’s

deploymentoftranslationinconstructingthe‘Hindu’subjectsoftheempire,

Niranjanadeemsitunnecessarytointerrogatehisactualtranslationsagainst‘the

socalledoriginals’(1992:13).Instead,sheproposes‘toexaminethe

“outwork”ofJones’stranslations–theprefaces,theannualdiscoursestothe

Asiaticsociety,hischargestotheGrandJuryatCalcutta,hisletters,andhis

“Oriental”poems’(ibid.).Niranjana’sdismissalof‘thesocalledoriginal’is

informedbyapoststructuralistconceptoftextuality.Buttranslationperse –

not‘culturaltranslation’initsbroad,metaphoricalsense–presupposesthe

existenceofasourcetext.Torevealtheinstabilityofthesourcetextisonething

(hereoneneedstobemindfuloftheculturalimperialismpotentwithinaradically

deconstructivestancetowardsthirdworldtexts,particularlytheirsacred

canons);todismisstherelevanceofcomparativetextualstudyisquiteanother.

Withoutindepthtextualcasestudiestorevealthemanifoldwaysinwhich

colonialistideologieshaveshaped,andtakenshapein,actualtranslations,

postcolonialstudiesoftranslationcannotaddressthecorequestionsposedfrom

withinthediscipline.Failuretoaddressthesequestionsadequatelycastdoubt

onthelegitimacyofpostcolonialapproaches’claimtoacentralpositionin

translationstudies

Seealso:

CULTURALTRANSLATION;DECONSTRUCTION;ETHICS;

GLOBALIZATION;IDEOLOGY;MINORITY;STRATEGIES.

Furtherreading:

Rafael1988;Niranjana1992;Spivak1992b;Venuti1992;Sengupta1995;

Venuti1995a;Robinson1997a;BassnettandTrivedi1999;Tymoczko1999a;

SimonandStPierre2000;TymoczkoandGentzler2002;Cheung2004/2007;

BranchadellandWest2005.

WANGHUI

Pragmatics

In1955atHarvard,psychologistswerebuzzingwithexcitementaboutthe

lecturesbeinggivenbyNoamChomskyonhistheoryofTransformational

GenerativeGrammar.Inthesameyear,alsoatHarvard,theBritishphilosopher

JohnAustinwastodelivertheprestigiousWilliamJameslecturesandpresent

whatwastohaveanequallystrongimpactonawiderangeofdisciplines.This

wasanewperspectivewhichwastoradicallyreshapeourviewoflanguageand

thewayitoperates.Sincethen,thedomainofpragmaticinquiryhasemergedas

adisciplineinitsownright,attendingtosuchmattersas‘thestudyofthe

purposesforwhichsentencesareused,oftherealworldconditionsunder

whichasentencemaybeappropriatelyusedasanutterance’(Stalnaker

1972:380).

Speechacts

Speechactsarethoseweperformwhen,forexample,wemakeacomplaintor

arequest,apologizeorpaysomeoneacompliment.Thepragmaticanalysisof

speechactsseesallutterancesintermsofthedualfunctionof‘stating’and

‘doingthings’,ofhavinga‘sense’anda‘force’.Anutterance,inthisview,has:

(a)asenseorreferencetospecificevents,personsorobjects;

(b)aforcewhichmayoverrideliteralsenseandthusrelayaddedeffectssuch

as