释意理论指导下汉英交传译文的对比性研究
|
摘要
进入二十一世纪以来,随着2008年北京奥运会和残奥会,以及2010年上海世博会和广州亚运会的胜利举办,中国与世界各个国家的联系和交流越来越频繁密切。口译作为一种沟通媒介与方式,在国际舞台上发挥着越来越重要的作用。与此同时,在学术界口译作为一种学科也得到了译员、各类专家和翻译界人士的高度重视。
基于大量的口译实践研究,法国释意派理论创始人达妮卡·塞莱斯科维奇于1968年发表了《国际会议议员—言语与交际问题》,为释意理论的进一步发展奠定了坚实的基础。此后,巴黎高等翻译学院的研究人员,借鉴了心理学,认知心理学和语言学等相对成熟的学科的研究成果,结合长期的口译及笔译实践以及教学经验,总结出了一套特征明显,日臻完善的理论体系。释意理论赋予了语言学、修辞学中语言、言语以及明喻和暗喻等名词新的内涵和外延,并提出了“脱离原语外壳”等重要概念,主张译者理解、翻译和表达的对象是源语作者要传达的意义和内容,而不是源语的语言外壳及形式。交替传译作为口译的其中一种重要形式,广泛地应用于各种会议以及公众讲话的场合。在口译实践中,不同译者脱离语言外壳的能力差异、翻译对象的选择等因素会对译文的可懂性会产生深远影响。
在释意理论的指导下,作者对母语分别为英语和汉语的两位译者所做的汉英交传译例进行了比较研究。通过定量及描述性分析,文章得出结论:在汉译英交替传译过程中,母语为英语的译者提取源语信息量较大,“脱离源语外壳”的程度更高,并善于捕捉讲话人的意图和动机,同时将言语看作翻译的对象。母语为汉语的译者也有其自身的优势:因其对源语的认知知识和认知补充掌握得较丰富,有助于对源语材料的文化背景知识的理解,从而创造出更加细致准确的译文。最后,本文为两位译者提出取长补短的建议,希望本文的结论能够对今后的口译研究及实践产生一定的指导意义。
Since the 21~(st) century, China has successfully held the 2008 Beijing Olympic and Paralympics Games, 2010 Shanghai Exposition as well as the 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games. The communication between China and the rest of the world became more and more frequent. Interpretation, as a basic medium and manner of communication, is playing a more significant role on the international stage. Meanwhile, interpreting as a discipline is drawing unprecedented attention from interpreters and scholars in the academic circle.
On the basis of huge amount of research on the interpreting practice, the founder of the Interpretive Theory Danica Seleskovitch published L’interprete dans les Conferences Internationals, Problemes de Langage et de Communication, laying a solid foundation for further development of the Interpretive Theory. Scholars from the Paris School combining research findings and results in psychology, cognitive psychology and linguistics with long-term interpreting practice and teaching experience, created a theoretical system with distinctive features. The Interpretive Theory borrows terms such as langue, parole, explicit and implicit respectively from linguistics and rhetoric and gave them new connotations and denotations. The Paris School also introduces the essential concept“de-verbalization”which means the interpreter should comprehend and express the sense and content of the source language instead of the language form and structure. Consecutive interpreting as an important form is widely adopted in all sorts of conventions and public speeches. In the interpreting practice, elements such as the interpreters’de-verbalization ability and the chosen of the interpreting object exert great influence on the quality of the interpretation.
The author compares two versions of Chinese-English consecutive interpretation done by interpreters whose first languages are English and Chinese respectively in the light of Interpretive Theory. Conclusions have been drawn through quantitative and descriptive analysis that in the process of Chinese-English consecutive interpreting, the native English interpreter extracts more sense units from the source language, thus enjoys stronger ability of de-verbalization. She successfully captured the intention of the speaker and focused on the parole instead of langue. The Chinese native interpreter shows excellent mastery of the cognitive knowledge and complement, which contributes to the understanding of the cultural background nurturing the target language, thus providing more accurate interpretation for the audience. In conclusion, the author suggests that the two interpreters should draw upon each other’s advantages in the interpreting practice, hoping that the conclusion of the research could contribute to the promotion of the interpreting research.
基于大量的口译实践研究,法国释意派理论创始人达妮卡·塞莱斯科维奇于1968年发表了《国际会议议员—言语与交际问题》,为释意理论的进一步发展奠定了坚实的基础。此后,巴黎高等翻译学院的研究人员,借鉴了心理学,认知心理学和语言学等相对成熟的学科的研究成果,结合长期的口译及笔译实践以及教学经验,总结出了一套特征明显,日臻完善的理论体系。释意理论赋予了语言学、修辞学中语言、言语以及明喻和暗喻等名词新的内涵和外延,并提出了“脱离原语外壳”等重要概念,主张译者理解、翻译和表达的对象是源语作者要传达的意义和内容,而不是源语的语言外壳及形式。交替传译作为口译的其中一种重要形式,广泛地应用于各种会议以及公众讲话的场合。在口译实践中,不同译者脱离语言外壳的能力差异、翻译对象的选择等因素会对译文的可懂性会产生深远影响。
在释意理论的指导下,作者对母语分别为英语和汉语的两位译者所做的汉英交传译例进行了比较研究。通过定量及描述性分析,文章得出结论:在汉译英交替传译过程中,母语为英语的译者提取源语信息量较大,“脱离源语外壳”的程度更高,并善于捕捉讲话人的意图和动机,同时将言语看作翻译的对象。母语为汉语的译者也有其自身的优势:因其对源语的认知知识和认知补充掌握得较丰富,有助于对源语材料的文化背景知识的理解,从而创造出更加细致准确的译文。最后,本文为两位译者提出取长补短的建议,希望本文的结论能够对今后的口译研究及实践产生一定的指导意义。
Since the 21~(st) century, China has successfully held the 2008 Beijing Olympic and Paralympics Games, 2010 Shanghai Exposition as well as the 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games. The communication between China and the rest of the world became more and more frequent. Interpretation, as a basic medium and manner of communication, is playing a more significant role on the international stage. Meanwhile, interpreting as a discipline is drawing unprecedented attention from interpreters and scholars in the academic circle.
On the basis of huge amount of research on the interpreting practice, the founder of the Interpretive Theory Danica Seleskovitch published L’interprete dans les Conferences Internationals, Problemes de Langage et de Communication, laying a solid foundation for further development of the Interpretive Theory. Scholars from the Paris School combining research findings and results in psychology, cognitive psychology and linguistics with long-term interpreting practice and teaching experience, created a theoretical system with distinctive features. The Interpretive Theory borrows terms such as langue, parole, explicit and implicit respectively from linguistics and rhetoric and gave them new connotations and denotations. The Paris School also introduces the essential concept“de-verbalization”which means the interpreter should comprehend and express the sense and content of the source language instead of the language form and structure. Consecutive interpreting as an important form is widely adopted in all sorts of conventions and public speeches. In the interpreting practice, elements such as the interpreters’de-verbalization ability and the chosen of the interpreting object exert great influence on the quality of the interpretation.
The author compares two versions of Chinese-English consecutive interpretation done by interpreters whose first languages are English and Chinese respectively in the light of Interpretive Theory. Conclusions have been drawn through quantitative and descriptive analysis that in the process of Chinese-English consecutive interpreting, the native English interpreter extracts more sense units from the source language, thus enjoys stronger ability of de-verbalization. She successfully captured the intention of the speaker and focused on the parole instead of langue. The Chinese native interpreter shows excellent mastery of the cognitive knowledge and complement, which contributes to the understanding of the cultural background nurturing the target language, thus providing more accurate interpretation for the audience. In conclusion, the author suggests that the two interpreters should draw upon each other’s advantages in the interpreting practice, hoping that the conclusion of the research could contribute to the promotion of the interpreting research.
引文
[1]. Baker, Mona. (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
[2]. Delisle, Jean. L’Analyse du Discours comme Methode de Traduction [M].Ottawa : University of Ottawa Press, 1980.
[3]. Ducrot, Oswald. (ed.) Les Echelles Argumentatives [M]. Paris. de Minuit, 1980.
[4]. Gile, Daniel. Justifying the De-verbalization Approach in the Interpreting and Translation Classroom [J], Forum (2), 2003: 47-63.
[5]. Gile Daniel. Conference Interpreting as a cognitive management Problem, in Pochhacker, Franz& Miriam, Shlesinger, The Interpreting Studies Reader [M]. London, Routeledge, 2002.
[6]. Lederer, M. How the Explicit/Implicit Bifurcation of Meaning Impacts on Translation [J], 2005(3):33-36.
[7]. Pochhacker, F. & Miriam Shlesinger. The interpreting Studies Reader [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
[8]. Seleskovitch, Danica. Language and Cognition [J]. in Language, Interpretation and Communication D Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), New York, London, Plenum Press, 1978a :9.
[9]. Seleskovitch, Danica. L’interprete dans les Conferences Internationals, Problemes de Langage et de Communication [M] Lettres Modernes, Minard, Paris, 1968 :5.
[10]. Seleskovitch, Danica. Take care of the sense and the sounds will take care of themselves or why Interpreting is not Tantamount to translating languages [J]. The Incorporated Linguist, 1987: 27-33.
[11].Slam-Carr, Myriam. La Traduction a l’Epoque Abbasside [M], Paris: Didier-Erudition, 1990.
[12].蔡小红.交替传译过程及能力发展[J].现代外语, 2001(3):276-285.
[13].达妮卡·塞莱斯科维奇,玛丽亚娜·勒代雷.口笔译概论[M] (孙慧双译).北京,北京语言学院出版社, 1992.
[14].达妮卡·塞莱斯科维奇,玛丽亚娜·勒代雷,口译理论实践与教学[M].北京,旅游教育出版社, 1990.
[15].范守义.模糊数学与译文评价[J].中国翻译, 1987 (4), 2
[16].龚龙生.从释意理论看我国口译研究的发展[J].西安外事学院学报, 2006(4), 65-73.
[17].刘和平.法国释意理论:质疑与探讨[J].中国翻译, 2006 (4).
[18].玛丽亚娜·勒代雷.释意学派口笔译理论[M] (刘和平译).北京,中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
[19].齐苗苗.评估口译忠实度的实证研究[D].长沙,长沙理工大学, 2008:18.
[20].孙序.论释意理论对交传理解过程的影响[D].上海,上海外国语大学, 2006:2.
[21]王斌华.口译能力评估和译员能力评估[J].外语界, 2007(3), 44-50.
[22]肖晓燕.西方口译研究:历史与现状[J].外国语, 2002(4) ,72-73.
[23]许钧.当代法国翻译理论[M].武汉,湖北教育出版社, 2004.
[24]杨建华.现代西方译学理论[M].天津,天津大学出版社, 2009.
[25]张培蓓,任静生.评估口译忠实度的策略[J].中国科技翻译, 2006(3):59-61.
[26]张培蓓.口译质量评估方法的研究[D].合肥,合肥工业大学, 2007:36.
[27]张薇薇.论译员会议前的口译准备工作[J].黄冈师范学院学报, 2006(4).
[28]郑以莹.从功能翻译理论和释意理论看记者招待会口译[D].上海,上海外国语大学, 2009:3.
[29]钟述孔.实用口译手册[M].北京,中国对外翻译出版公司, 1999.
[30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution Viewed on February 1, 2011.
[31] Collins English- Chinese Dictionary (E-edition)
[2]. Delisle, Jean. L’Analyse du Discours comme Methode de Traduction [M].Ottawa : University of Ottawa Press, 1980.
[3]. Ducrot, Oswald. (ed.) Les Echelles Argumentatives [M]. Paris. de Minuit, 1980.
[4]. Gile, Daniel. Justifying the De-verbalization Approach in the Interpreting and Translation Classroom [J], Forum (2), 2003: 47-63.
[5]. Gile Daniel. Conference Interpreting as a cognitive management Problem, in Pochhacker, Franz& Miriam, Shlesinger, The Interpreting Studies Reader [M]. London, Routeledge, 2002.
[6]. Lederer, M. How the Explicit/Implicit Bifurcation of Meaning Impacts on Translation [J], 2005(3):33-36.
[7]. Pochhacker, F. & Miriam Shlesinger. The interpreting Studies Reader [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
[8]. Seleskovitch, Danica. Language and Cognition [J]. in Language, Interpretation and Communication D Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), New York, London, Plenum Press, 1978a :9.
[9]. Seleskovitch, Danica. L’interprete dans les Conferences Internationals, Problemes de Langage et de Communication [M] Lettres Modernes, Minard, Paris, 1968 :5.
[10]. Seleskovitch, Danica. Take care of the sense and the sounds will take care of themselves or why Interpreting is not Tantamount to translating languages [J]. The Incorporated Linguist, 1987: 27-33.
[11].Slam-Carr, Myriam. La Traduction a l’Epoque Abbasside [M], Paris: Didier-Erudition, 1990.
[12].蔡小红.交替传译过程及能力发展[J].现代外语, 2001(3):276-285.
[13].达妮卡·塞莱斯科维奇,玛丽亚娜·勒代雷.口笔译概论[M] (孙慧双译).北京,北京语言学院出版社, 1992.
[14].达妮卡·塞莱斯科维奇,玛丽亚娜·勒代雷,口译理论实践与教学[M].北京,旅游教育出版社, 1990.
[15].范守义.模糊数学与译文评价[J].中国翻译, 1987 (4), 2
[16].龚龙生.从释意理论看我国口译研究的发展[J].西安外事学院学报, 2006(4), 65-73.
[17].刘和平.法国释意理论:质疑与探讨[J].中国翻译, 2006 (4).
[18].玛丽亚娜·勒代雷.释意学派口笔译理论[M] (刘和平译).北京,中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
[19].齐苗苗.评估口译忠实度的实证研究[D].长沙,长沙理工大学, 2008:18.
[20].孙序.论释意理论对交传理解过程的影响[D].上海,上海外国语大学, 2006:2.
[21]王斌华.口译能力评估和译员能力评估[J].外语界, 2007(3), 44-50.
[22]肖晓燕.西方口译研究:历史与现状[J].外国语, 2002(4) ,72-73.
[23]许钧.当代法国翻译理论[M].武汉,湖北教育出版社, 2004.
[24]杨建华.现代西方译学理论[M].天津,天津大学出版社, 2009.
[25]张培蓓,任静生.评估口译忠实度的策略[J].中国科技翻译, 2006(3):59-61.
[26]张培蓓.口译质量评估方法的研究[D].合肥,合肥工业大学, 2007:36.
[27]张薇薇.论译员会议前的口译准备工作[J].黄冈师范学院学报, 2006(4).
[28]郑以莹.从功能翻译理论和释意理论看记者招待会口译[D].上海,上海外国语大学, 2009:3.
[29]钟述孔.实用口译手册[M].北京,中国对外翻译出版公司, 1999.
[30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution Viewed on February 1, 2011.
[31] Collins English- Chinese Dictionary (E-edition)