翻译和中文的外国化

IF 0.2 3区 哲学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Michael N. Forster
{"title":"翻译和中文的外国化","authors":"Michael N. Forster","doi":"10.1163/15406253-12340109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explains a new ‘foreignizing’ approach to translation that was invented in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, especially by Herder and Schleiermacher, and that has since become the predominant approach in translation theory. The article argues that despite the great virtues of this approach, it was based on an unduly narrow restriction to Indo-European languages, which leaves considerable room for further improvement. Greater attention to Hebrew has since made up this deficit to a certain extent. But Chinese holds the potential for even more important refinements of the original theory. The article explains the original theorists’ failure to exploit this case in terms of a certain prejudice against Chinese language and culture that had arisen at the time, and for which these theorists were themselves partly responsible. It then tries to show in some detail how deeply enriching for the theory a consideration of Chinese can be.","PeriodicalId":45346,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY","volume":"4 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foreignizing Translation and Chinese\",\"authors\":\"Michael N. Forster\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15406253-12340109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explains a new ‘foreignizing’ approach to translation that was invented in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, especially by Herder and Schleiermacher, and that has since become the predominant approach in translation theory. The article argues that despite the great virtues of this approach, it was based on an unduly narrow restriction to Indo-European languages, which leaves considerable room for further improvement. Greater attention to Hebrew has since made up this deficit to a certain extent. But Chinese holds the potential for even more important refinements of the original theory. The article explains the original theorists’ failure to exploit this case in terms of a certain prejudice against Chinese language and culture that had arisen at the time, and for which these theorists were themselves partly responsible. It then tries to show in some detail how deeply enriching for the theory a consideration of Chinese can be.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45346,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"4 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-12340109\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-12340109","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文解释了一种新的 "外化 "翻译方法,这种方法发明于 18 世纪末 19 世纪初,尤其是由赫尔德和施莱尔马赫发明,此后成为翻译理论中的主流方法。文章认为,尽管这种方法有很多优点,但其基础过于狭隘,仅限于印欧语言,这就为进一步改进留下了相当大的空间。此后,对希伯来语的更多关注在一定程度上弥补了这一不足。但汉语有可能对原始理论进行更重要的完善。文章从当时出现的对汉语和中国文化的某种偏见的角度,解释了最初的理论家们未能利用这一案例的原因,这些理论家们自己也要对这种偏见负部分责任。然后,文章试图详细说明,对中文的思考可以极大地丰富理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Foreignizing Translation and Chinese
This article explains a new ‘foreignizing’ approach to translation that was invented in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, especially by Herder and Schleiermacher, and that has since become the predominant approach in translation theory. The article argues that despite the great virtues of this approach, it was based on an unduly narrow restriction to Indo-European languages, which leaves considerable room for further improvement. Greater attention to Hebrew has since made up this deficit to a certain extent. But Chinese holds the potential for even more important refinements of the original theory. The article explains the original theorists’ failure to exploit this case in terms of a certain prejudice against Chinese language and culture that had arisen at the time, and for which these theorists were themselves partly responsible. It then tries to show in some detail how deeply enriching for the theory a consideration of Chinese can be.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Since its foundation Journal of Chinese Philosophy has established itself at the forefront of contemporary scholarly understanding of Chinese philosophy, providing an outlet for the dissemination and interpretation of Chinese thought and values. The journal has three main aims: first, to make available careful English-language translations of important materials in the history of Chinese philosophy; second, to publish interpretations and expositions in Chinese philosophy; third, a commitment to publishing comparative studies within Chinese philosophy or in relation to schools of thought in the Western tradition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信