English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 6469/11641
Visitors : 19811901      Online Users : 218
RC Version 3.2 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Adv. Search

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.ncue.edu.tw/ir/handle/987654321/15041

Title: The Concept of Translation in Renaissance England
Authors: 彭輝榮
Contributors: 英語學系
Keywords: 翻譯;對等;英國文藝復興;隱喻;翻譯文化
Date: 2009-07
Issue Date: 2013-01-07T01:51:15Z
Publisher: 彰化師範大學
Abstract: Deeply influenced by the medieval theory of translatio, Renaissance humanist educators show that "translation" is much more than what we think it to be today. There were "translation practices" indeed, but they must not be seen as Nida's "dynamic equivalence" in printed form but as a part of rhetoric deriving from classical learning. Wilson (1553) and Ascham (1570) stipulated that "translation" referred to rhetorical work rather than simply rendering one language into another on a printed page. This work involved a great deal of oral expression practices.The first issue is that grammar schooling all the way through college education since the medieval times has gone through two stages, one without books and papers, the other with printing technology having been invented. The stage without books and papers required pupils to do double oral translating of the classical pieces; the stage with books and papers began to pay more attention to writing training, which, in the following centuries, gradually developed into a translation practice more familiar to us today. Though living in the Early Modern Period, Renaissance writers seem to belong more in the first stage, making translating an enterprise of managing linguistic metaphors. From educators, and particularly from Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses, we see very good demonstrations of tremendous personal free will in "translating" Latin into English. William Tyndale, Sir Thomas Hoby, John Florio, and George Chapman provide outstanding examples of the metaphorical point of view that bound translation to rhetorical training.The second issue is that the political implications of translating the Bible still held sway on the concept (and the business) of translation. Latin was the dominant language in the grammar schools and in the academia, though Mulcaster (1581), more than any other humanist educators, strongly encouraged the use of the vernacular language in schools. In higher education, influenced by Wilson, Ascham, Chapman, Brinsley, Hoole, and Walker, the conflict between the imperial though more useful Latin and the "political correct" English existed. This made rendering "foreign" languages into English a matter of hegemonic and legal encounter. On a safer side, though no less "political" in perspectives, translation became a way of rhetorical training in schools, an adventure into the nature of linguistic sports that made it to self-proximity, not faithfully conveying messages from the source. Moreover, because of its emphasis on use of metaphors, this kind of rhetorical training appears very curious to us.The third issue is literacy. One of the reasons why translation practices in the medieval and Renaissance times look curious to us today is that reading for pleasure was far from a popular cultural activity. Still limited to the blessed wealthier classes, such as the gentry, the clergyman, the tradesman, and the yeoman, the learning of Latin formed a good part of the efforts in socio-political mobility, showing that classical learning, thus rhetorical training, was an important requirement for the young intellectuals in the system of patronage and the aspirers of the lay society, though only in limited number after a great deal of advances. The translation practice as we see in King James' Bible was rare. It simply could not obtain any popular momentum in educational arena, particularly for classical auctores.I conclude that seen from the reality of the translation culture experienced by its time, even though it sometimes exceeds its boundaries with use of metaphors and tropes, "out-Herods Herod" (Hamlet 3.2.14), the concept of translation in Renaissance England may serve as a polished mirror to hold up to nature for modern translators.
受到中世紀translatio概念的影響,文藝復興時期的教育家所提倡的翻譯和我們今天的觀念可能有相當差距。當時的翻譯觀,和Eugene Nida倡言之「靈動對等」不同,它是和學習古典文學─尤其是拉丁文學─關係至深的修辭學。Thomas Wilson和Roger Ascham認為翻譯指的是修辭學上的功夫,而不只是在紙上進行兩種語言的忠實轉換。而且依據筆者觀察,這種修辭學上的練習,如雙向翻譯(double translation),必然存在大量的口譯訓練。本論文談的第一個議題是自中世紀以來,從私塾至大學教育,翻譯實踐均分兩階段發展,第一階段既無書,亦無紙張,即便初時有,也不易獲得。另一階段則紙張已然發明,並且相對容易獲得。書籍與紙張付諸缺如的年代要求年輕學生練習對古典文學進行雙向翻譯,而且從口譯開始,以省下紙張花費。書籍和紙張普及之後,書寫練習慢慢變得重要起來,並且經過幾個世紀的演變,終於發展成今日我們熟悉的口筆譯分家觀念。雖然活在早期現代,文藝復興時期的作家其訓練似乎仍未脫離第一階段,使得翻譯成為高度口語化、經營管理個人雄辯生涯的事業。教育家們的教科書提倡的,和Arthur Golding翻譯Ovid的《變形記》是這種高自由度翻譯的極佳例子,William Tyndale, Sir Thomas Hoby, John Florio, and George Chapman提供十分多例子。他們都對自己的修辭翻譯學觀點─尤其是所謂隱喻觀點─提供許多辯解。第二個議題是聖經翻譯引起的政治意涵仍然對翻譯觀念和生涯經營有極大影響。在私塾和學術語言訓練的場所,拉丁文一項都是最重要的。雖然和其它教育家有些不同,Mulcaster對學校使用本土語文(英文)採取鼓勵態度。在語言教育中,受到Wilson, Ascham, Chapman, Brinsley, Hoole, 及Walker等文法教育家的影響,帝國語言雖然用途較廣,其和「政治正確」的本土英文仍有若干衝突。這使得將「外語」翻譯成母語成為權力與法律的遭遇戰。為了相對安全起見─這雖然從其它角度看來仍然可以很政治─翻譯實踐在訓練場所才變成修辭訓練,而且是對語言本質遊戲和對自我完成的一種冒險,而不是今天我們所看到的忠實傳達原語訊息的活動。再者,因為重視「隱喻」的使用,這種修辭訓練於今看來十分特殊。第三個議題是低識字率的社經與政治意涵仍然遍佈社會。中世紀與文藝復興時期的翻譯觀念之所以令今人覺得好奇的原因,是因為在當時能享受讀書樂的絕不是廣大的平民人口。只有較為富有的階層,如貴族、教會、商人、和鄉紳等階層機會較大,因此,學習拉丁文實是社會與政治流動的重要一環。這使我們瞭解,古典文學和修辭學的學習極為重要,因為這門學問是貴族系統收編年輕知識份子的重要方式,也是非教會的社會育才、選才的重要渠道。詹姆士國王的聖經所展現出的翻譯觀念並不常見,在教育界無法推廣,尤其無法推廣至古典文學作家的翻譯。筆者所獲結論是,在文藝復興時期,受其時代背景限制,翻譯文化縱然常常以其修辭和隱喻的運用跨越文字的藩籬,其翻譯觀念仍然可以為今日翻譯實踐者提供一面閃亮的鏡子,絕對可以幫助我們進一步瞭解翻譯的真正本質。
Relation: SPECTRUM : NCUE Studies in Language, Literature, Translation, 5: 203-231
Appears in Collections:[英語學系] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
2040200210002.pdf870KbAdobe PDF2050View/Open

All items in NCUEIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback