In the above analyses of the role and significance of language in human self-development and intersubjective relations, the perspectives offered by philosophy and psychology are rich in potential. They have fostered a deeper understanding of the complex relations that exist between language, subjectivity and intersubjectivity. In the course of examining the views of subjectivity and intersubjectivity from a philosophical and psychological perspective, questions have been raised about the ways in which they carry out the linguistic turn in translating work. Although the above analysis is chiefly philosophical and psychological in scope, it is my hope that it will enable us to recognize the considerable parallels between philosophy and psychoanalytic theory and its application to the field of translation study. Intersubjectivity should be a general guiding principle for the subjectivities in modern society and especially should be an important guiding principle for translation and a new perspective for translation studies. II． Most translators in translation history chose a fluent, domesticating method that inscribes the foreign text with target-language values, both linguistic (fluency) and cultural (for example, in a Judeo-Christian monotheism - “writing ‘God’ for ‘Zeus’” by Fitts in One Hundred Poems From the Palatine Anthology 1938) in spite of a varied range of concepts, beliefs, and ideologies in source language. It was regarded that the reader ought, if possible, to forget that it is a translation at all, and to be lulled into the illusion that he is reading an original work. Of course a necessary inference from such a principle is, that whatever has a foreign color is undesirable and is even a grave defect. The translator, it seems, must carefully obliterate all that is characteristic of the original, unless it happens to be identical in spirit to something already familiar in target language. The few translators who chose to resist these values by developing a foreignizing method, taking up the innovations to signify the linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text, from time to time encountered condemnation and neglect and thus, the ways in this cultural situation constrained the translator’s activity. Certainly in translation the translator should desire the reader always to remember that his work is an imitation, and moreover is in a different material; that the original is foreign, and in many respects extremely unlike our native compositions. There are two maxims in translation: one requires that the author of a foreign nation be brought across to readers in such a way that readers can look on him as theirs; the other requires that readers should go across to what is foreign and adapt ourselves to its conditions, its use of language, its peculiarities. Interestingly, from the translation history, it can be learned that the domestic cultural and political agenda that guided the work of these translators did not entirely efface the differences of the foreign texts. On the contrary, the drive to domesticate was also intended to introduce rather different foreign ideas and forms into target language so that it would be able to compete internationally and struggle against the hegemonic countries. As a result, the recurrent analogies between classical target culture and modern foreign values usually involved a transformation of both. In fact translation is a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation. Because meaning is an effect of relations and differences among signifiers along a potentially endless chain (polysemous, intertextual, subject to infinite linkages), it is always differential and deferred, never present as an original unity. Both foreign text and translation are derivative: both consist of diverse linguistic and cultural materials that neither the foreign writer nor the translator originates, and that destabilizes the work of signification, inevitably exceeding and possibly conflicting with their intentions. Accordingly, a foreign text is the site of many different semantic possibilities that are fixed only temporarily in any one translation, on the basis of varying cultural assumptions and interpretive choices, in specific social situations, in different historical periods. Meaning is a plural and contingent relation, not an unchanging unified essence, and therefore a translation cannot be judged according to mathematics-based concepts of semantic equivalence or one-to-one correspondence. Appeals to the foreign text cannot finally adjudicate between competing translations in the absence of linguistic error, because canons of accuracy in translation, notions of “fidelity” and “freedom”, are historically determined categories. Even the notion of “linguistic error” is subject to variation, since mistranslations, especially in literary texts, can be not merely intelligible but significant in the target-language culture. The viability of a translation is established by its relationship to the cultural and social conditions under which it is produced and read. This relationship points to the violence that resides in very purpose and activity of translation: the reconstitution of the foreign text in accordance with values, beliefs and representations that preexist in the target language, always configured in hierarchies of dominance and marginality, always determining the production, circulation, reception of text. Translation is the forcible replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that will be intelligible to the target-language reader. This difference can never be entirely removed, of course, but it necessarily suffers a reduction and exclusion of possibilities. Whatever difference the translation conveys is now imprinted by the target-language culture, assimilated to its positions of intelligibility, its canons and taboos, its codes and ideologies. The aim of translation is to bring back a cultural other as the same, the recognizable, even the familiar; and this aim always risks a wholesale domestication of the foreign text, often in highly self-conscious projects, where translation serves an appropriation of foreign cultures for domestic agendas, cultural, economic, political. Of course, at the same time, foreignizing translation method could never be entirely free of domestic values and agendas. If the foreignizing strategies deviated too widely from prevailing domestic values in the reception of archaic texts, for example, especially scholarly annotation and fluent discourse, omitting annotations can of course signal the cultural difference of the foreign texts, insisting on their foreignness with all the discomfort of incomprehension. 1 ，英语毕业论文，英语论文范文 |
