《你耳朵里的是条鱼吗》（第九章和第十章）翻译项目报告.pdf

'：‘寺畫ｒ瞧蔡知壤轉纖篆言穩鑛難，―由Ｉ鶴如夢Ｉ塗ＪＩ：－？＇古片／巧結去．＾＿■＇占给读縣：々；這与：，，古开＼安两，记’孽‘芭、Ｐ．；葡译专化学化巧古论义疑ｙｓ：；Ｖ娘襄’’＇’．＂－‘．：中．柏去．於卷、：＾著．．．賈．．Ｉ：．；；；？Ａ耳备》？Ｐｆ第光幸和第＾章，患？．斯种巧６旅告．满．？、．邱诚邸摩；藤ｒ啼娩货典这＇－－－－－，－ｔ，，一．Ａ＜＇？Ｖ一—，．一．‘■…．－？告？式听玉島併．，冷巧Ｖ狂；若品公Ｖ－＇－：－：ｖ？．，ｒ；：ｉ－ｒ’＇＇巧＇皆．：Ｕ道苗－．．／＇—；？－＿．一？’、、一－．．．、．；ｒｖ、公Ｖ＇＇、’’－＾、、、￣－ｖ＼—，―、、．，片早；Ｖ义试二媒及、．．－、、，、、、、、、、？．＞．．■．．狂ｉｌｌ导？巧Ｉ－Ｖ■姜觀巧教巧；＾，诚护、／萬熱軒礙韓、、，．－．ｖ；、．、—、．；ｃ■■？：ｙ＾——’．＇－甘－‘又扣：知．々Ｘ、＾；：；冥．，；专Ａ名難．ｍ＊ｍ±Ｖ皆ｖ，ＫＶ、、’門：、￣￣￣＂、皆敏＾冶Ｒ＞成啼？、、、Ｎ、、、、Ｖ、、＼＼＼＼．巧＊，拥併巧＊纖織游誦—■■＇＇■＇＇＜．■－Ｉ、—－Ｓ、、＊、、－－＇＇；；．．．．＇．．论．．＇＇义ｉｓ闻Ｉ２Ｗ４ｔ时０年月清．．：：知！：ｔｉ妃ｉ－＊－，、＊－一．，，Ｓ处，３’，’，’４江江￣Ｖ＇—－－－乂ｔ，心，ｙｆｆ．雜嘴爲齡每海＇．＾ｔ．推孤無茜ｖｖ／义答ＷＩ１６５酱嗦？Ｕ接辩材年月＼Ｓ聲＂必ｒ．＇、产、＇‘＾｜啤．．＇＇；＾声７；＇ｒ．：Ｖ：：：Ｉ：‘？．＇－＇＇’－？‘‘－．－－占－二心．＇－？Ａｒ？络；避若，装其—’？．．．，０：苦抑扣３４岔巧狂逆；Ａ义编号＇，？＇Ｖ－—＊、－ｊ－中心．．？．－－一－．－＇、一一一心－＇－＇．ｒＴＬＩ－Ｔ。－．化？、＾—＾．．、／公．方—竹―方今、Ｉ．、－＇－．诚‘产心．Ｔ、ｉ卢．－、．、？、－＇＂－＇＇＇’－－Ｖ．：－：：：：＇．＇－－＇；如知＾．ｖ；早．，；—、、、Ｖ，Ｖ．＇方－Ｉ４巧ｆ‘巧禪Ｖ＇ｙ＇、辨巧巧‘－．．－－＇．－．．－－．＇，．．．么－：．成Ｖ．ＶＣＶ，Ｖ．＇知．，；辟贼巧热＞：护／紙＾挺Ｖ與一巧．＇＇—－－．‘“、．．－．．＂．．．－＾．．：－；片ｙ游芋早＾吿一满；与吃兴冉．錢，定呑巧？．，巧摩宾耗祭、．巧辨；；；？．、，却．哨．．护；＇＾，發辨栽护、＞彎，：，毎作帘苗與备爲苗績诸＾惡单、，■、、■＊＾■、；．’．＇‘一？一＇一－产咕－古‘、？．．；－产呵－．诗、声：：於Ｖ＇、—；作啥今＾；、／二，、ｊ之‘：Ｖ铅努；说變瘦谊毅島识话堅ｒ狂幕弟二哈听於皆每潑減霞 SichuanInternationalStudiesUniversityAReportontheTranslationofIsThataFishinyourEar?(Chapters9&10)byWangChangliAthesissubmittedtotheGraduateSchoolinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMasterofTranslationandInterpretingunderthesupervisionofProfessorJiangShuqinChongqing,P.R.ChinaMay2016 学位论文独创性声明本人声明所呈交的学位论文是本人在导师指导下进行的研究工作及取得的研究成果，除，。据我所知了文中特别加标注和致谢的地方外论文中不包含其他人己经发表或撰写过的研究成果，化不巧含为获得四川外国语大学或其他教育机构的学位或证书而使用过的材料一。与我同工作的同志对本研究所做的任何贡献均已在论文中作了明确的说明并表示谢意。学位论文作者签名：签字日期：学位论文版权使用授权书本学位论文作者完全了解四川外国语大学有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，有权保留并向国家有关部口或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版，允许论文被查阅和借阅。本人授权四川外国语大学可Ｗ将学化论义的令部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，可Ｗ采用影印、缩印或扫描等复制手段保存、汇编学位论文。（保密的学位论文在解密后适用本授权书）矣魚琴学位论文作者签名：主履側导师签名：签字曰期：方化年６月＾曰签字曰期：年＾月曰５学位论文作者毕业后去向：工作单位：电话：通讯地址：邮编： 《你耳朵里的是条鱼吗？》（第九章和第十章）翻译报告摘要本文是一篇翻译项目报告。翻译项目的原文摘自戴维·贝娄斯(DavidBellos)编著的《你耳朵里的是条鱼吗？》(IsThataFishinYourEar?)的第九章和第十章。该书是一部翻译研究专著，第九章主要介绍词典学，包括词典的起源与发展以及编写词典的目的与意义;第十章在前一章节的基础之上引出直译与意译之争的话题，围绕该争议展开各种观点的叙述。报告开头简要介绍了翻译项目的背景与意义，其次介绍原文的作者及原文的内容与特点。项目的原文本属于信息类文本，除了具备信息类文本用词精准的一般性特征，还具有其独有的特点，如：轻松的语调，简洁的语言，生动的例子和灵活的语义修辞手法。在翻译过程中笔者以汉斯·弗米尔的目的论为理论指导，该理论强调翻译方法和策略的选择应该由翻译的功能和目的决定。考虑到译文的受众是中国读者，报告结合翻译实践进行分析和研究，采用异化和归化相结合的翻译策略以及增译、转换和分译等翻译技巧，准确传递原文信息，并举例说明运用上述方法解决翻译过程中的难点,再现原文特征；最后总结在翻译过程中所得到的启示、教训和有待解决的问题。关键词：翻译项目报告；《你耳朵里的是条鱼吗？》；目的论；翻译技巧ii AReportontheTranslationofIsThatAFishinYourEar?(Chapters9＆10)AbstractThisisatranslationprojectreportwhosesourcetextsareselectedfromIsThataFishinYourEar?,amonographoftranslationwrittenbyDavidBellos.Initsninthchapter,theauthormainlyintroducesdictionaries,includingtheoriginandthedevelopmentofdictionariesandtheaimaswellasthesignificanceofcompilingdictionaries;thentheauthorbringsreadersadisputebetweenliteraltranslationandfreetranslation,describingmanyothers’viewsthatfocusonthisdispute.Thereportbrieflyintroducestheprojectbackgroundandsignificanceatfirst,andthenintroducestheauthor,contentandfeaturesofthesourcetext.Thetexttypeofthesourcetextisinformative.Apartfromageneralfeatureofprecisioninwordingasinformativetextshave,itpossessesitsowncharacteristics,suchaslighttone,conciselanguage,sprightlyexamplesandsmartuseofsemanticrhetoricdevices.Intranslatingpractice,theauthorfollowsSkoposTheorybyHansJ.Vermeerastheoreticalinstruction,whichemphasizesthattranslationstrategiesandmethodsaredeterminedbythefunctionandtheaim.ConsideringChinesereadersastheaudience,thereportappliesstrategiesbothdomesticationandforeignizationafteranalyzingandresearchingtranslationpractice.Additionally,thereporterenumeratesseveraltranslationtechniquessuchasamplification,conversionaswellasdivisiontoexplainhowtosolvedifficultiesintranslatingpractice,toconveycorrectinformationandtoreproducefeaturesofthesourcetext.Attheend,thereportmakesaconclusionoflessonsthetranslatorhaslearnedandproblemstoberesolvedinthefuture.Keywords:translationprojectreport;IsThataFishinYourEar?;SkoposTheory;translationtechniquesiii AcknowledgementsFirstandforemost,Iwouldliketoexpressmygreatgratitudetoourdeansandtutorsfortheirindoctrinationandsupport,especiallymysupervisor,ProfessorJiangShuqin,bothforherintellectualguidanceduringtheprocessofwritingthisprojectreportandforherconstantencouragementsandkindheartedconcernsinmywholeacademiccareer.Withoutthehelpofherbrilliantinstructionandpracticaladvice,thisprojectwouldneverfinishedontime.Sheofferedmesubstantialassistanceinbothmyacademicstudyandoutlookoflifeduringmypostgraduatecareer.Therefore,Iowethesuccessfulfulfillmentofthisreporttoherinrewardofherkindnessandteaching.Then,Iamalsoverythankfulforthehelpandsupportofferedbymyclassmatesandfriends.Theynotonlygavemeimportanthelpandsupportonthisreport,butalsobroughtmemuchjoyandaffectioninmystudyandlife.Althoughthepostgraduatestudyisabouttodrawtoaclose,ourfriendshipwillbetreasuredinmywholelife.Lastbutnottheleast,cordialgratitudeformybelovedfamilywhohavesharedwithmemyworries,frustrations,andhopefullymyultimatehappinessineventuallyfinishingthisreport.iv CONTENTS摘要............................................................................................................................iiAbstract.........................................................................................................................iiiAcknowledgements.......................................................................................................ivChapterOneIntroduction............................................................................................11.1BackgroundoftheProject....................................................................................11.2SignificanceandObjectivesoftheReport...........................................................21.3StructureoftheReport..........................................................................................3ChapterTwoAnalysisoftheSourceText.................................................................42.1AbouttheAuthor...................................................................................................42.2MainContentsoftheSourceText…………………………………………........42.3FeaturesoftheSourceText...................................................................................52.3.1PrecisioninWording.....................................................................................52.3.2LightTone.....................................................................................................6ChapterThreeApplicationofSkoposTheory.............................................................73.1BriefIntroductiontoSkoposTheory……….............................................……..73.2AnalysisofSourceTextbySkoposTheory.…………………………………....8ChapterFourTranslationDifficultiesandCorrespondingMethods.........................94.1PreparationsBeforeTranslation...........................................................................94.2DifficultiesinTranslation....................................................................................94.2.1SelectionofWords......................................................................................104.2.2LongSentences...........................................................................................104.3StrategyChoicesandTranslationTechniqueAdoptionsUndertheGuidanceofSkoposTheories........................................................................................................104.3.1DomesticationandForeignization...............................................................114.3.2Amplification...............................................................................................124.3.3ShiftfromtheConcretetotheAbstract.......................................................144.3.4Division.......................................................................................................15ChapterFiveConclusion...........................................................................................175.1LessonsLearnedfromtheTranslationPractice.................................................175.2ProblemstoBeSolved.......................................................................................18References....................................................................................................................19AppendixISourceText................................................................................................20AppendixII中文译文................................................................................................35v Chapter1Introduction1.1BackgroundoftheProjectNowadays,withboomingeconomicgrowthanddiverseculturalexchanges,especiallysinceChina’spolicyofreformandopeningup,abundantwesternculturehasbeencontinuallyintroducedintoChinese,includingtangiblecultureandintangibleculture.Bookisatypicalexampleoftangibleculture,whiletranslationactivityisintangible.Thankstomoreandmoredevelopedandimprovednetworktechnology,peoplefindaconvenientaccesstopurchaseforeignbooksorreade-booksonline.However,whatifsomepeoplewhodonotunderstandforeignlanguageswanttoreadthoseinterestingforeignbooks?WhatifsomeprofessionalswhoarenotproficientinEnglishwanttoknowthelatestacademictrendsinwesterncountries?Whatifsomepeoplewhoarenovicesinthefieldoftranslationwanttoknowmoreabouttranslationsincetranslationhasbecomeanindispensableandpracticalapproachforpeoplewhospeakdifferentlanguagestocommunicatewitheachother?Consequently,anumberofacademictranslationscameintobeingtomeetthosepeople’sneedsandtheywillbedestinedtoreceiveincreasingattentionduetothestaggeringgrowingrate.ThesourcetextofthistranslationprojectisselectedfromtheninthandtenthchaptersofIsThataFishinYourEar?,anacademicbookwrittenbyDavidBellos,whoisadirectorofthePrograminTranslationInterculturalCommunicationatPrincetonUniversity.Thisbookwasinitiallypublishedin2011andthereisnoissuedChineseversionyet.Afterward,itattractedmuchattentionfromworldfamouspublishers.Asaresult,manyreviewswerepublishedonit,suchasTheTimes,TheNewYorkTimes,TheEconomist,SundayTelegraph,LosAngelesTimes,TheIndependent,TheScotsman,TheGuardian.What’smore,LiteraryReviewsandKirkusReviewscarriedremarksonthisbook.“ItwaspraisedbyTheNewYorkTimesasoneofthenotablebooksin2011.Meanwhile,itwaslistedinBooksoftheYearin2011byTheEconomist”(ZhengQingzhu&SunHuijun,2012,p.31).1 1.2SignificanceandObjectivesoftheReportThisacademicbookabouttranslationiswritteninthewaythatdiffersfromwhatreadersusuallyread.Thetopicsrangeextremelywide,becauseanythinghassomethingtodowithtranslationincluded,suchasdictionaries,newstranslation,simultaneoustranslationandliteraltranslation.Accordingtothereport,from2000to2009only5%ofbooksweretranslatedintoChineseandmerely10%ofbooksweretranslatedintoEnglish.Duringthepasttenyears,theoverwhelmingmajorityofbooksweretranslatedintoGermanandFrench.Ontheonehand,itmeansthatEnglish,German,andFrenchareplayingpushingrolesinlanguagesfortranslation,especiallyforliteratureandbooks.Ontheotherhand,itreflectsthatChinesepeopleseldomreadforeignbooks.Nothingisbetterthanthatbookwhichcanmeetarealneed.Forexample,EdithGrossmanwritesaquitegoodbook,WhyTranslationMatters,nevertheless,itcoversliterarytranslationsolely.StevenPinker’sbooksaboutlanguagehavebeenhighlypraised,buttheyleavereaderspuzzlingwhethertheauthorhasagoodcommandofotherlanguageapartfromEnglish.Andacoursenamed‘TranslationStudies’inuniversitiesisahighlytheoreticaldisciplinethatisbeyondtheunderstandingofmostpracticingtranslators—muchlesspeoplewhodonotunderstandEnglish.Thisbookinvolvesvarioustopicsoftranslation.Basically,Bellos’audiencearenotprofessionaltranslatorsandlinguists.Asamatteroffact,mostofthemarecommonreaders.Somepeoplemaybenotgoodatlanguagesunlesstheywerelanguagegenius,itwouldbeawasteoftimetoexpectthemtoknowallthoselanguageswellenoughtoenjoyanoveleveryyear.Sotheyneedrelyontranslatorstobringthemconveniencetoreadbooksinalanguagetheyarefamiliarwith.Hence,theauthorofthistranslationreportaspirestotranslatepartoftextsintoChinesetotellthegeneralpublicsomethingabouttranslation.“Whileacademictranslationreferstothetranslationontheacademicworks,namely,itfocusesonthinkingabouttheproblemconsciousnessandconceptanalysis,otherthantotranslateentertainingbookforpeople’srecreation.”(ZhouLingshun,2008,p.78)2 Thisprojectreportwilltakeanacademicworkontranslationasanexampletoindicatetwopoints.Inthefirstplace,althoughmostofacademicworksareserious,therestillexitsanacademicbookwritteninlighterstylewithafunctionofmakinggreatdifferencetotheexchangeofacademicthoughts,evenmakegreatcontributionstoChinesecivilization.Inthesecondplace,onthebasisofthistranslationpracticeguidedbySkoposTheory,thefundamentalobjectiveofthisreportistosummarizethetranslationstrategiesandtechniquesfortranslatingacademicworks.1.3StructureoftheReportThereportconsistsofthefollowingfiveparts.Morespecifically,thefirstpartprovidesgeneralinformationabouttheprojectandthereport,includingthebackgroundoftheproject,andtheobjectives,significanceaswellasstructureofthereport.Thesecondpartisaboutananalysisofthesourcetext,whichintroducestheauthor,maincontentsanditsfeatures.ThethirdpartintroducesaboutSkoposTheory.Theforthparttalksaboutdifficultiesencounteredintheprocessoftranslating,andexplainsindetailthemethodsappliedundertheguidanceofSkoposTheory,withspecificexamplestodemonstrateexertionsthetranslatorhasmadeforadesirabletranslation.Andthelastpartservesastheconclusionofthetranslationreport,includinglessonslearnedfromthispracticeandproblemsthatremainedtobesolved.3 Chapter2AnalysisoftheSourceText2.1AbouttheAuthorDavidBellosisanEnglish-borntranslatorandbiographer.HeearnedhisdoctorateinFrenchliteratureatOxfordUniversity.Atthebeginning,heresearchedonthenovelandthehistoryofliteraryideasinnineteenthcentury,thenbecameaexpertinthefieldofmodernandcontemporaryFrenchwriting.Hegraduallycultivatesinterestsinthehistoryofthebookandfilmstudies,yetdevoteshimselftoliterarytranslationandTranslationStudiesovertheyears.HehaswontheFrench-AmericanFoundation’stranslationprizein1988,thePrixGoncourtdelaBiographiein1994andtheManBookerInternationaltranslator’sawardin2005.Atpresent,BelloshasajointappointmentinFrenchandComparativeLiteratureatPrincetonUniversityintheUnitedStates.HeisalsoaDirectorofPrinceton"sPrograminTranslationandInterculturalCommunication.2.2MainContentsoftheSourceTextFromanall-inclusiveanger,DavidBellos,arespectedtranslatorandprofessorofcomparativeliterature,writesthebookthatcoversvarioustopicsabouttranslationasmuchaspossible.Onthecoverofthebook,thereisababelfishinsertedinone’sears,whichissaidtobeabletotranslateanyinconceivablelanguage.Thisbookcontainsthirty-fourchaptersintotal,eachwritingabouttranslationwithdiverseperspectives,includinglinguistics,anthropologyandcross-culturecommunication.Thesourcetextaretheninthchapterandthetenthchapter,selectedfromthebookIsThataFishinYourEar?.Theformerchaptermainlyintroducedictionariestoreadershowtounderstandthem.Itfirstlytalksabouttherelationshipbetweendictionariesandtranslation.Asweallknow,dictionariesisindispensableforanforeignlanguagelearner,letaloneatranslator.However,westerndictionariescannomoreexistwithouttranslators’abundanttranslationpractice.Then,itgivesbriefintroductionaboutwhatisSPDandwhatisGPD,andfromtheselistsofallthewords,4 theauthorproposeanenlightenquestion—whatkindofathingonearthalanguageis?Next,theauthorexpoundsfunctionsofadictionarywithtwopresuppositions.Sincedictionariesneedlistwords,then,whichwordsshouldbelisted?TheauthorgivesanswerbyexemplifyingafictionalcharactercreatedbyGeorgesPerec.Atlast,theauthorgiveshighpraisetothethesaurusasanextraordinaryachievementforitservestranslationintwodistinctandequallyimportantways.Chapterten,agoodportionofthisbook,itisaboutwhattranslationis.Thenotionoftranslating"senseforsense",not"wordforword"isofcoursegoodadvice,andveryoldadvice.Thischapterisconcernedwithwidelyknownargumentovertheliteraltranslationandfreetranslation,whichreferstomanyexemplificationsoffamouspeopleandtheirviews.Theauthorhandlesthingslike,whatdowemeanby"literaltranslation",andwhyitishardertotranslateAsterixthanProust.TheformerpartofthischapterfocusesonalongsentencewrittenbySaintJerome,andthreetranslationversionsofhiswordsphrasingwhatdoeshereallymeans.Then,theauthortakesanexampleofMarkTwain’spranktoprovethattheopinionof“literaltranslationisnotimpossible,butitisnotatranslation.”fromOctavioPaz.Itsaysthatliteraltranslationreallyrefersonlytothewrittenformofwords,andevenmoreparticularlytotherepresentationofwordsinanalphabeticscript.Attheendofthewholechapter,Bellosdiscussesdifferentwaysoflanguageteaching.2.3FeaturesoftheSourceTextWhenitcomestoacademicworksoftranslation,theymayleavereadersaquiterigorousactivity.However,thisworkofanthropologictranslationactsofferedbyDavidBellosistotallydifferentfromthosebooks.Hisbook,IsThataFishinYourEar?isapracticalandsprightlywritingforanyonekeenaboutwords,languageandculture.2.3.1PrecisioninWordingInReiss’sview,theacademicbookisakindofinformativetext.Reisspointedoutthat“informativetext,namely,plaincommunicationoffactssuchasinformation,knowledge,opinion,etc.Thelanguagedimensionusedtotransmittheinformationis5 logicalorreferential,thecontentor‘topic’isthemainfocusofthecommunication”(Reiss,1989,p.55).Therefore,theauthorchoosespunchywordsbothcarefullyandpragmatically.Takingthefirstparagraphinchapternineforexample,theauthorchooseswordslike“constant”,“fascinating”,“seek”and“obtain”,then,whydoestheauthordonotchoosewords,suchas“everlasting”,“interesting”,“search”,“gain”orsomeotherwords?Tobehonest,inspiteofthefactthatsomewordshavesimilarmeaning,theyproducedifferenteffectivenessandfunctions.2.3.2LightToneSinceitisnotabookaboutteachinghowtotranslate,theauthordoesnottalkaboutsomuchtranslationtheoriesthatbewilderreaderswithevenavagueinterestinlanguageandtranslation.Intheselectedtwochapters,theauthorchoosesanumberofinterestingexamplesexcludingtoomuchtechnicaltermstointroducedictionariesandsharesplentyofanecdotestospecifydiversestatementsaboutfreetranslationandliteraltranslation.Amongmostoftheseexemplifications,theauthorusessemanticrhetoricaldevicessothatreadershaveabetterandvividunderstandingofwhatpointsdoestheauthorwanttoconvey.Forexample,inthefirstparagraphofchapternine,dictionariesarecomparedtobetheauthor’sfriendsbytheapplicationofpersonificationtoshowdictionarieshavethesimilarfunctionasfriendsdo.Inthefollowingexamples,readersaretoldthattryingtocapture“allthewordsofalanguage”isofnouseastryingtocaptureallthedropsofwaterinaflowingriver.Itisauseofsimileapparently.Moreexamplesliketheserhetoricaldeviceswillbefurtheranalyzedinthefollowingchaptersofthisreport.6 Chapter3ApplicationofSkoposTheoryAsmentionedinthepreviouschapter,translationstrategiesguidedbyappropriatetheoriesandnormsplayasignificantroleinreproducingthefeaturesofSTinTT,soitisbeneficialtoadoptcorrespondingtheoreticalframeworkintranslatingthischosentext.ThispartwillgiveabriefintroductionoftheguidingsignificanceofSkoposTheoryproposedbyHansJ.Vermeer.3.1ABriefIntroductiontoSkoposTheoryTheeminentSkoposTheory,proposedbyHansJ.Vermeer,isconsideredasthebreakthroughoffunctionaltranslation.“ItachievesthemajorshiftfromthedominanceofSTtotheemphasisonSkoposistheGreekwordfor“purpose”or“aim”inEnglishandwasintroducedintotranslationtheoryinthe1970sasatechnicaltermforthepurposeofatranslationandoftheactionoftranslating”(Munday,2008,p.79).Skopostheoryplaysapushingroleinthefunctionaltheory.Itiscomposedofthreerules：theskoposrule,thecoherenceruleandthefidelityrule.Theimportanceofthefirstruletotheresttworulescanneverbedoubtedandthesecondruleisfundamentalonthelastone.ThemaincontentofSkoposTheoryisthefocusontheaim,namely,theskoposrule,whichdeterminesadoptionsoftranslationstrategyandmethodsoastoproduceapracticallyqualifiedeffect.ThecoherencerulereferstotheTTshouldbeconfirmtothestandardofintra-textualcoherence.Thatistosay,todelivertheTTaudience,sufficientcontextandinformation,theTTmustbetranslatedlogically.ThefidelityruledefinesthattheTTissupposedtohavethelogicalconnectionwiththeSTtoreachthegoalofcoherence,besides,alltheinformationfromtheSTthatreceivedbythetranslator,interpretedbythetranslatorandtranslatedforthetargetreadersshouldbeincluded.UndertheguidanceofVermeer’sSkopostheory,translationisanactionthatmustbegivenpurposes.ItmeansthattheTTshouldbereceivedbythetargetreaders7 inthebackgroundoftheTL.Acertaintranslationtaskmayadoptthefreetranslationorfidelityruleaccordingitscertainaim.“However,nomatterwhatkindoftranslationmethodisadopted,itisdecidedbythedefinitivepurpose”(顿官刚,2011,p.247)3.2AnalysisonSourceTextbySkoposTheoryAsVermeerputsit,translationisapurposefulcommunicativeaction,anditsaimdeterminesthetranslationstrategiesandtranslationmethods.Vermeerdescribesthecommissionshouldbenegotiatedbetweenthecommissionerandthetranslator.Intheprocessoftranslating,DavidBellowscanberegardasthecommissioner.Theclearpurposeoftranslationistointroducetheauthor’sinnovativeperspectivesontranslationandcriticalspiritstoChinesereaders.Hence,thetranslatorshouldadoptpropertranslationstrategiesandtranslationmethodstoreachthegoal.AsthecoherencerulestatesthattheTTshouldbeunderstoodbythereceivers,thetranslatorshouldtaketheculturaldifferencesbetweenEnglishandChinesereadersintofullconsiderationssoastoadoptappropriatetranslationstrategiestoremainthefeaturesandcontentsoftheSTthatcanbeunderstoodbythetargetreaders.Withregardtothefidelityrule,thetranslatoroughttoinitiallygraspaccurateinformationofST,subsequentlyexpoundtheinformationthatisencodedfortheTTaudience.8 Chapter4TranslationDifficultiesandCorrespondingMethods4.1PreparationsbeforeTranslationThetranslatormadesuchpreparationsforcompletingthetasksuccessfully.Firstly,thetranslatorsearchedtheInternettobrowthebooklistinrecentfiveyearssothattochooseanappropriateaswellasinterestingbookasthesourcetext,inthecaseofnopublishedChinesetranslationversionofthedesirablebook.Thetranslatoraskedinstructoranddeanwhetheritissuitableforapostgraduatetotranslatethisbook.Secondly,thetranslatorborrowedsufficientreferencebooksabouttranslationtheoriesandparalleltextsfromlibrary,hadalookatoverviewsfromreadersanddownloadedsomethesesaboutIsThataFishinYourEar?，expectingtohaveageneralknowledgeaboutthisbookandtheauthor.Thirdly,duetotheauthorofthebookisaFrenchprofessor,healsowrotesomeFrenchinthosechapters.What’smore,becauseofsomeerrorsappearedintransformationofsourcetextfromPDFtoWORD.Hence,thetranslatoraskedforhelpfromherfriendswhounderstandFrenchtoguessthecorrectwordsandtranslatethepropermeaning.Onthewhole,thetranslatormadeasmuchaspreparationsshecouldtocompleteasatisfyingtranslationreport.4.2DifficultiesinTranslationInthetranslator’sopinion,thefeaturesoftheST,tosomeextent,arealsothedifficultiesatthesametime.Ontheonehand,itisskillfulforthetranslatorhowtoreproducethefeaturesintheTL;ontheotherhand,thosefeaturesrefertotwomainaspects:lexicallevelandsyntacticallevel.“AstheVermeer’sSkoposTheoryachievesthemajorshiftfromthedominanceofSTtotheemphasisonTTandthecooperationoflinguisticformselectionsandculturalfactorsintranslation”(Gentzler,2004,p.70),thetranslatorhastochooseproperwordstoremaintheconsistencyoftheSTatthelexicallevel.Astosyntacticallevel,problemsareoriginatedfromthedifferencesbetweenChineseandEnglish.9 4.2.1SelectionofWordsDuetothedifferencesbetweenEnglishandChineseattheleveloflexis,selectionofwordsisbecomingoneofthedifficultiesthattranslatorshavetofacewith.Anumberoffactorshavetobeborneinmindintranslationpractice.FisrtcometotheproblemwhetherthewordinSLiscorrespondingwiththewordinTL.“Besidestheleveloflexis,contexts,functionsandcollocationsalsohavetobeconsideredintranslation”(CaiLijian,2016,p.117).SoitisdifficulttochooseappropriateChinesewordsintheTTtoreproducethefeaturesoftheplainwordsintheST.AlthoughwordsarenotcomplexintheST,itindeedisatrickytasktoconveythecorrectmeaningthroughthecommonwordswithvariousimplicationsandalighttoneasthesameastheST.4.2.2LongSentences“Englishlaystressonhypotaxisinlongsentencewithendlessmodifierstohighlightgrammaticalstructure,whileChinesesentencesemphasizeonparataxiswithinshortandconcisesentences”(LianShuneng,2010,p.65).Meanwhile,astheSTisanacademicwork,itisinevitablyendowedwithcommonfeaturesthatacademicwritingshave,suchascomplexity,formalityandexplicitness.ThesefeaturesandtheinherenthypotaxisofEnglishledtheauthortowritecopiouslongsentencescontainingmanymodifiedcomponents.4.3StrategyChoicesandTranslationTechniqueAdoptionsUndertheSkoposTheory“Intermsofpurposeoftranslation,academictranslationcanberoughlydividedintotwotypes:academictranslationinthesenseofcommunicationandacademictranslationinthesenseoflinguisticscienceanddifferenttranslation”(Zhou10 Lingshun,2008,p.78-84).FindingoutthecharacteristicsoftheSTanddifficultiesinitisessentialinthetranslationpractice,whichisbeneficialfortranslatortoadoptpropertranslationtechniquesandtranslationstrategies.Forthatreason,thetranslatordecidedtochoosethestrategiesofforeignizationanddomesticationintheprocessoftranslatingthisinformativetext.Also,applicationofliteraltranslationandsometranslationtechniqueslikeaddition,omissionandshiftundertheguidanceofSkoposTheorywillbeexemplifiedinthefollowingpart.4.3.1DomesticationandForeignizationAsmentionedinchaptertwo,whatmakestheSTdifferentfromotherinformativetextsisthattheauthorexcelsatusingsemanticrhetoricdevicestohighlightthelighttoneamongacademicwriting.Intheprocessoftranslating,somesentencescanbetranslatedwordforword,whilesomecannotbedonemechanically.“Domesticationandforeignizationaretwodifferentstrategiesintranslation,determiningtranslatorstowhichsideclose”(XiongBing,2014,p.84).“Domesticationisthestrategyofmakingtextcloselyconformtothecultureofthelanguagebeingtranslatedto,leavingthereaderinpeaceasmuchaspossibleandmovesthewritertowardhim”(Schleiermacher,2006,p.229).ItisoftenthecasethatastraightforwardandsmoothstyleismoreacceptableintheaimofdiminishingthestrangenessoftheSTforTLreceivers.“Foreignizationisthestrategyofretaininginformationfromthesourcetext,andinvolvesdeliberatelybreakingtheconventionsofthetargetlanguagetopreserveitsmeaning”(Venuti,1995,p.32).Example1:ST:Thatseemsclearuntilyourealizethattheexceptionclausedrivesacartandhorsesthroughthemainclaim,becausewhatJeromedidthroughouthislonglifewastotranslatesacredscripture,morethanhalfofwhichhetranslatedfromGreek.TT:这个观点看似毫不含糊，直到你意识到“除了”这句话其实是站不住脚的，因为杰罗姆毕生的精力都花在了经文翻译上面，而且其中一大半都是希腊经文的翻译。Obviously,theSTisacomparativelycomplexsentencewithconnectivestoindicate11 logicalityanditcontainsasemanticrhetoricaldevice“drivesacartandhorses”.Westernersaremoreinclinedtoexpresstheirnotionsandthoughtsinaabstractway,whileChinesefocusonconcreteexpression.Thesamegoeswiththeuseofrhetoricaldevices.UndertheguidanceoftheSkoposTheory,thetranslationstrategyisdeterminedbythepurpose.TheSTistalkingaboutJerome’sexcuseforexpressingwordforword.Ifthetranslatortranslatestheexpression“drivesacartandhorsesthrough”wordforword,thetargetreadersmustbeconfusedthatwhatdoestheTTtalksabout.ItwouldmaketheTTdifficulttobeunderstoodandmeaningfulinthetargetlanguage.Then,itgoesagainstnotonlytheskoposrulebutalsothecoherenceruleandthefidelityrule.Whentranslatethissentence,thetranslatorshouldmakeitclearwhatdoes“todrivesacartandhorsesthrough”mean.Actually,ithasasimilarexpressionas“todriveacoachandhorsesthroughsomething”,whichmeanstoexposetheweakpointsandgapsinanargument.Therefore,itshallbetranslatedinto“站不住脚的”toconformtheTL.Example2:ST:Totrytocapture“allthewordsofalanguage”isasfutileastryingtocaptureallthedropsofwaterinaflowingriver.Ifyoumanagedtodoit,itwouldn’tbeaflowingriveranymore.Itwouldbeafishtank.TT:想要掌握“一门语言的所有词汇”是徒劳无益的,如同试图汇集起河流里的所有水滴一样。如果你做到了，它就不再是一条静止的河流。也许只有鱼缸才会满足你的要求吧。Inthispart,theauthoruseasimiletoexplainthattryingtocapture“allthewordsoflanguage”isthesamewithdreamingofcapturingallthedropsofwaterinaflowingriver,andbothofthemareunrealisticandalleffortswillbeinvain.ThetranslatorconsidersthattheTTwouldbeeasytounderstandbyChinesereadersandismeaningfuliftranslatoradoptstheliteraltranslationwithouttransferringmeaning.ItstillobeystheruleofcoherenceinSkoposTheory.4.3.2Amplification12 AmplificationisappliedtoachievethefunctionofTTwhichistotransmitenoughinformationoftheSTandproducethesameeffectorresponseasthatoftheoriginalreaders.IntheST,theauthor’sphrasesorsentencesaretooshort,amplificationisthenusedasawaytoexpandupondetails.Example3:ST:Thisisacuriousirony,becauseexpressionsthatmeanonethinganditsoppositewereathorninthefleshofpreciselythoseGreekthinkerswhoinventedthedistinctionbetweenliteralandfigurativeinthefirstplace.TT:该结论真是奇怪又讽刺，因为同时具有正反两种意义的这类表达方式，恰好是那些希腊思想家的眼中钉,肉中刺，他们最先发现了字面意思和引申意思的区别。AlthoughthereisonlyonenounphraseintheST,thetranslatoraddedanotheroneintheTTtomakeitcompletedandidiomatic.Asisknowntoall,Chinesepeopleoftensay“眼中钉，肉中刺”together,seldomtheyspeakthemseparately.Thiscolloquialexpressionusedtodepictedaintenseandprofoundhatredforsomebodyorsomething.ThetranslatoraddstheformerparttoconformwiththeChineselanguagehabitandthisamplificationembodiesthecoherenceruleandfidelityruleundertheguidanceofSkoposTheory.What’smore,thesecatchysixChinesecharacterscanreproducethefeatureoflighttoneoftheST.Example4ST:ButthefactthatIseekandobtainalotofhelpfromdictionariesdoesn’tmeanthatwithoutthemtranslationwouldnotexist.TT:虽然我能从词典中寻找答案并获得许多帮助，但这并不意味着没有词典，翻译就不复存在。Asindicatedinexample3,theauthorchoosesword“seek”insteadof“search”orotherwords,althoughtheyhavesimilarmeaningof“lookingfor”.“Seek”containsameaningthatsomebodylooksforandtrytoobtainsomething,while“search”indictionaryusuallymeansthatsomebodyexaminesaparticularplacewhenlookingforsomething,whichemphasizesonexamining.Becauseofthesubtledistinctionbetweenthesetwowords,theauthorcarefullychoosestheformerone.Hence,the13 translatortranslates“seek”into“找到”andaddanounsas“答案”totheverb.Whydoesnotthetranslatorusetheverb“寻找”?Themaindifferencebetweenthesetwowordsisthat“寻找”maynotfindtheobjectivebut“找到”meansthatsomebodyfindouttheanswerthathewants.Nowthattheauthorobtainshelpdictionaries,hemusthavefoundthewordsoranswershewantstoknow,thetranslatoradds“答案”totheverb“seek”,whichconveyacomparativelycomprehensiveinformationintheTT.Example5ST:Inordinaryspeaking,listening,andreading,wecopewiththegapsinvariousways.Animpenetrablephrasemaybetreatedasatransmissionerror—amispronunciation,atypo,ascribalglitch.TT:在一般的口语、听力和阅读当中，我们采取不同的方式以处理这些纰漏。若一个令人费解的词组也许会被视为是在传达时候出现了错误——可能是拼写错误、印刷错误或抄写错误。Asisknowntoall,itiscommonforChinesetorepeatthesamewordorsentenceinwritingsorspeaking,butitisnotausualsituationinEnglish.Sotheauthorpreciselyselects“error”,“mispronunciation”withaprefix“mis-”and“glitch”,threedifferentwordstoexpress“mistake”,whichmeansonethatcausesproblemsoraffectstheresult.Allthesewordsaretranslatedinto“错误”inChinese.Andthetranslatoraddsa“错误”tothe“typo”inordertokeepthebalanceandsymmetryoftheTT.TheTTwouldbevivid,clearandcomprehensiveinthewayofrepetition.Also,itemphasizesonaaestheticofrhythmtoreproducethelighttoneinST.4.3.3ShiftfromtheConcretetotheAbstractFromCatford’sstandpoint,“TranslationshiftreferstodeparturesfromformalcorrespondenceintheprogressofgoingfromtheSLtotheTL”(Catford,1965,p.73).Meanwhile,“thewordsdenotingtheconcreteobjectsandthewordsdenotingtheabstractssensescanbeconversedmutually”(ZhouFangzhu,LuZhihong,2008,p.55).Intheprocessoftranslating,theshiftbetweentheconcreteandtheabstractshouldbecarriedoutaccordingtothecontextofsituation.Thetranslatorendowedtheconcretenounswithabstractmeaning,combingthecontextandthetargetlanguage14 customsandadjustingsemanticsintheTTtoachievethegoaloffaithfulnessandsmoothness.Example6:ST:Themonolingualdictionarywasinthefirstplaceatwo-prongedweaponfortheimprovementandtheassertionofthecommonman.TT:单语词典不仅对普通人坚持学习语言有所帮助，而且还有助于他们取得进步，最先起到了双管齐下的作用。Readersareeasilyinclinedtoconnectaweaponwithtwoprongsintheirmindwhentheyreadthevividexpressionofatwo-prongedweaponchosenbytheauthor.Suchaweaponlikethismusthavethesameeffectivenesswithdoingboththingssimultaneously.Here,itreferstomonolingualdictionarieshasdoublefunctionsofimprovementandassertion,soamoreappropriatetranslationcanbe“双管齐下”inChinese,whichillustratesashiftfromtheconcretetotheabstract.4.3.4DivisionDivisionreferstodecomposealongsentenceintomorethantwounitsonthebasisofcomplyingwithfeaturesofChinesesentencesandsmoothlyandfaithfullyconveyingthecontentsintheST.Byadoptingthistranslationskill,thesubordinateclausesandmodifierscanbefeaturedwithmeaningfulshortparts,whichalsoreproducetheconcisephrasesandlighttoneintheTT.Example7:ST:Towardtheendofthenineteenthcentury,aFranco-EgyptianmountebankwithamedicaldegreeandatalentforsocialclimbingandfreecompositioninFrenchpublishedanewversionofTheArabianNights.TT:到了十九世纪末，一个获得医学学位的法裔埃及江湖郎中，善于攀高结贵，法语行文流畅，他发行了新版的《一千零一夜》（TheArabianNights）。Example8:ST:TheOttomansroundedupyoungstersinconqueredlandsandbroughtthembackasslavestobetrainedas“languageboys,’’inIstanbul.15 TT:奥斯曼人在他们占领的地盘集拢年轻人，将其带回伊斯坦布尔当作奴隶使唤，并将他们训练成“语言人才”。Asisshownintwoexamplesabove,eachoneisalongsentencewithdiversecomponentscontaininginnerlogicalrelationshipwhichmaketheSTdifficulttotranslate.Inthefirstsentence,thetranslatorfiguresoutthatthemaincomponentinthesentenceis“aFranco-EgyptianmountebankpublishedanewversionofTheArabianNights”andothercomponentsaremodifiers.Therefore,theTTcanbetranslatedintopartsofshortphrasestobeinaccordancewiththelanguagestyleoftheTL.Withregardtothelastexample,therearetwopredicateverbsintheST.Thetranslatorconvertsthemodifier“tobetrained”intoanotherpredicateverbandmakesitaseparatepartsoastocreateafluentsentence.Allthesedividedpartsconveythemeaninglogically,accuratelyandclearly.AndthetranslatorchoosesdivisionbecausetheSTistellingauthenticstories.ConcisewordsandshortsentencereproducetheinterestandrichnessoftheST.Meanwhile,thetranslationtechniqueadoptedensurestheexpectedfunctionsoftheTTtomeetChinesereaders’needs.ItdeterminestheTTconformtothetextualcoherenceofthetranslationinitsculture,andrelevancebetweentheTTandtheST.16 Chapter5Conclusion5.1LessonsLearnedfromtheTranslationPracticeHeregoesagoodoldsaying,“grindingachopperwillnotdelaytheworkofcuttingfirework”.Thankstothefullypreparations,thereportcanbefinishedsmoothlyandthetranslatorlearnsalotfromthewholeprocess.Thetranslatorrealizesthatevenifnoteverytranslatorhastobeatheorist,asatranslator,itisnecessaryforheorshetomastersomebasictranslationtheories,methodandtechniques.Tobehonest,toreproducethefeaturesoftheST,thetranslatorhastoanalyzethestructureofeverylonglogicalsentenceandlookintothedictionarytochoosethemostappropriatemeaningofawordoraphrase.Inaddressingthosedifficulties,thetranslatorconversethemodeofthethinking,choosepropertranslationstrategiesandtranslationtechniquesthatinaccordancewiththeexpressionsoftheTTcustoms.Fortunately,theSTitselfisexactlyaacademicworkabouttranslation,thetranslatorwaseducatedunconsciouslythroughthetranslating.AndundertheguidanceoftheSkoposTheory,thetranslatorfoundhercompetenceoftranslatinghadmadeagreatprogress.Secondly,sincetheSTisatranslationacademicwork,itcontainsmanypeople’snamesandbooks’names,thetranslatorhadtoconsultrelevantinformationtomakesureacorrecttranslation.Withoutlong-lastingenduranceandrigorousattitude,thetranslatorcannotfinishthetranslationsuccessfully.Meanwhile,thetranslatorhastoimprovethelanguagelevelbothinEnglishandChinesewithnon-stop.Inthefirstprocessoftranslating,thetranslatorfoundherselfisalittlebitcolloquial,whichisnotappropriatetotranslateaninformativetext.AndsometimesthetranslatorunderstandthemeaningoftheST,however,shecannotchoosethebestwordstoreplaceinTT.ThereasonliesintheinsufficientfoundationsinChinese.Therefore,thetranslatorshouldlearndiversebasicknowledgetobroadenhorizonandenrichherself.Atlast,thetranslatorlearnsthatagoodtranslationisrefinedbyproofreading17 manytimes.Asanoldsayinggoes,“Romewasnotbuiltinoneday.”Theproofreadingcouldbefinishedbytranslatorherselforunderthehelpofotherreaders.AndeachtimewhentheTTwasproofread,thetranslatorgainedalot.5.2ProblemstoBeSolvedBecauseoflimitedtranslationcompetenceofthetranslator,therearestillsomeproblemstobesolved.Forexample,thereisaChinesescholar’sname,MeiYing-tso,writteninWade-Gilesromanizationwhichisappearedinchapternine.ThetranslatortriedherbesttosearchinformationontheInternetinthehopeoffindingoutitsofficialname,butfailed.Hence,“一个姓梅的中国古代学者”tookplaceofthe“MeiYing-tso”intheST.Andasecondexample,thereisaparagraphaboutMarkTwain’sback-translationofhisstoryintoEnglish.ThetranslatorhesitatesthatwhetherthisparagraphshouldbetranslatedintoChinese.Shepondersontwopoints.ThefirstoneishowtotranslateanunfaithfulSTintoanequalunfaithfulTT?Thesecond,andalsothemainreasonisthattheSTiswrittenbyMarkTwaininasingle-wordsubstitutiondeviceintheaimofopposingofhisFrenchtranslator’soveruseofrephrasing.Therefore,thetranslatorleavesitwithouttranslatingintheTTinordertogiveaintuitiveunderstandingandacceptanceforreaders.Maybeitisnotasatisfiedchoice,soabettersolutionissupposedtobeproposed.What’smore,thetranslatoronlyselectedtwochaptersastheST,leavingotherthirty-twofascinatingchaptersinthebookuntranslated,whichisfarmoreenoughforreaderswhoareinwantofpursuingfurtherinformation.18 ReferencesCatford,J.C.(1965).ALinguisticTheoryofTranslation.London:OxfordUniversityPress.Gentzler,Edwin.(2005).ContemporaryTranslationTheories(RevisedVersion).Shanghai:ShanghaiForeignLanguageEducationPress.Gowerse,E.(1987).TheCompletePlainWords.Middlesex:PenguinBooks,Ltd.Munday,J.(2008).IntroducingTranslationStudies:TheoriesandApplications.LondonandNewYork:Routhege.Reiss,K.(1989).TextTypes,translationtypesandtranslationassessmenttranslatedbyA.Chesterman,Chesterman(ed.).Schleiermacher,F.(2006).OntheDifferentMethodsofTranslation.InRobinson,D.(ed.).WesternTranslationTheory:FromHerodotustoNietzsche.Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress.Venuti,Lawrence(1995).TheTranslator"sInvisibility.NewYork:Routledge.ZhouFangzhuandLuZhihong(2008).PrinciplesofTranslationbetweenEnglishandChinese.Hefei:AnhuiUniversityPress.蔡力坚.(2016).论翻译的选词.中国翻译,(1),117-120顿官刚.(2011).西方翻译理论文献选读.湖南：湖南师范大学出版社.连淑能.(2010).英汉对比研究.北京：高等教育出版社.熊兵.(2014).翻译研究中的概念混淆——以“翻译策略”、“翻译方法”“翻译技巧”为例.中国翻译,(3),82-88周领顺.(2008).学术翻译研究与批评论纲.外语研究，（1），78-84.郑庆珠.孙会军.(2012).评戴维贝娄斯新作IsThataFishinYourEar?.中国翻译,(5),31-33.19 AppendixISourceTextNINEUnderstandingDictionariesTranslatorsusedictionariesallthetime.Ihaveawholeset,withtheOxfordEnglishDictionaryintwovolumesandRoget’sThesaurousinprideofplace,alongsidemonolingual,bilingual,andpicturedictionariesofFrenchidioms,Russianproverbs,legalterminologies,andmuchelse.Thesebooksaremyconstantfriends,andtheytellmemanyfascinatingthings.ButthefactthatIseekandobtainalotofhelpfromdictionariesdoesn’tmeanthatwithoutthemtranslationwouldnotexist.Therealstoryistheotherwayaround.Withouttranslators,Westerndictionarieswouldnotexist.Amongtheveryearliestinstancesofwritingarelistsoftermsforimportantthingsintwolanguages.Thesebilingualglossariesweredrawnupbyscribestomaintainconsistencyintranslatingbetweentwolanguagesandtoacceleratetheacquisitionoftranslatingskillsbyapprentices.Thesestillarethemainpurposesofthebilingualandmultilingualglossariesinusetoday.Frenchperfumemanufacturersmaintainproprietarydatabasesofthetermsoftheirtradetohelptranslatorsproducepromotionalmaterialforexportmarkets,asdolathemanufacturers,medicalspecialists,andlegalfirmsworkingininternationalcommerciallaw.Thesetoolsassisttranslatorsmightily,buttheydonotlieattheoriginoftranslatingitself.Theyarethefruitsofestablishedtranslationpractice,nottheoriginalsourceoftranslators’skills.Sumerianbilingualdictionariesconsistofroomfulsofclaytabletssortedintocategories一occupations,kinship,law,woodenartifacts,reedartifacts,pottery,hides,copper,othermetals,domesticandwildanimals,partsofthebody,stones,plants,birdsandfish,textiles,place-names,andfoodanddrink,eachwithitsmatchingtermintheunrelatedlanguageofSumer’sAkkadianconquerors.Astheyareorganizedbyfield,theycorresponddirectlytotoday’sSPDs,or“specialpurpose”dictionaries一BusinessFrench,RussianfortheOilandGasIndustries,GermanLegalTerminology,andsoforth.Someofthemaremultilingual(asaremanyoftoday’sSPDs)andgiveequivalentsinAmoritic,Hurritic,Elamite,Ugaritic,andotherlanguagesspokenbycivilizationswithwhichtheAkkadianswereincommercialifnotalwayspeacefulcontact.FromancientMesopotamiatothelateMiddleAgesinWesternEurope,wordlistswithsecond-language20 equivalentswentonservingthesamepurposes一toregularizetranslationpracticeandtotrainthenextgenerationoftranslators.Characteristically,theymediatebetweenthelanguageofconquerorsandthelanguageoftheconqueredretainedasalanguageofculture.WhatdidnotariseintheWestatanytimeuntilaftertheinventionoftheprintedbookweregeneralorall-purposewordlistsgivingdefinitionsinthesamelanguage.TheWesternmonolingualdictionary一“thegeneralpurpose”dictionary,orGPD一isalateby-productoftheancienttraditionofthetranslator’scompanion,thebilingualwordlist,butitsimpactonthewaywethinkaboutalanguagehasbeenimmense.ThefirstrealGPDwaslaunchedbytheAcademieFrangaiseintheseventeenthcentury(volume1,A-L,appearedin1694);thefirsttobefinishedfromAtoZwasSamuelJohnson’sDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage,whichcameoutin1755.ThesemonumentsmarktheinventionofFrenchandofEnglishaslanguagesinapeculiar,modernsense.Oncetheyhadbeenlaunched,everyotherlanguagehadtohaveitsownGPD一failingwhich,itwouldnotbeareallanguage.Itwasn’tjustrivalrythatsparkedthegreatracetoproducenationaldictionariesforevery“nationallanguage.”Theneedtocompileself-glossinglistsofallthewordsinalanguagealsoexpressedanewideaofwhatkindofathingalanguagewas,anideatakendirectlyfromwhathadhappenedinEnglishandFrench.TheChinesetraditionisentirelydifferent.Itsrichhistoryofwordlistsisessentiallylinkedtothetraditionofwritingcommentariesonancienttexts,notatallwiththebusinessoftranslatingforeignlanguages,inwhichtraditionalChinesecivilizationseemstohavehadaslittleinterestasdidtheGreeks.EarlyChinesedictionarieswereorganizedbysemanticfieldandgavedefinitionsroughlylikethis:Ifsomeonecallsmeanuncle,Icallhimanephew(fromtheErhYa,thirdcenturyB.C.E.).ItwasnoteasytofindawordintheErhYa,andmanyofthedefinitionsgivenweretoovaguetobeusefulinthewaywewouldnowwantadictionarytobe.Itwasatoolforcultivatingknowledgeofmoreancienttexts,soastomaintainrefinementinspeechandscript.ThesecondkindofglossaryofclassicalChinesearoseinthefirstcenturyC.E.,anditlistedcharactersorganizedbytheirbasicwrittenshapes,or“graphicradicals.”Theseworksgavenocluesastohowthewordsshouldbepronounced,andtheirpurposewasmainlytoassisttheinterpretationofancientwrittentexts.ThethirdtypeofearlyChineselexiconwastherhymedictionary一handbooksforpeoplewhoneededtoknowwhatrhymeswithwhat,becauserhymingskillswere21 testedinexaminationsfortheimperialcivilservice.ItwasnotuntiltheseventeenthcenturythatadeviceforclassifyingChinesecharactersinawaythatmadethemeasilyretrievablewasdevisedbythescholarMeiYing-tso,afewyearsbeforeJesuitmissionariesproducedthefirstWestern-stylebilingualdictionariesofChinese(intoLatin,thenPortuguese,Spanish,andFrench).TraditionalChinesedictionaries,lexicons,andglossariesdonotlist“allthewordsofthelanguage”inthewaythatWesterndictionariesseektodo;theylistwrittencharactersandtheyorganizethembysemanticfield,orbywrittenforms,orbysound.TheirprofounddifferenceperhapsmakesclearertheextenttowhichWesterndictionarymakingisalsoa“regional”traditionarisingfromtheparticularnatureofthescriptthatwehave.Whatisadictionaryfor?Theutilityofabilingualglossaryisobvious.Butwhatisthepurposeofamonolingualone?AGPDseemstoimplythatspeakersofthelanguagedonotknowitverywell,asifEnglish,totakethefirstexample,weretosomedegreeforeigntospeakersofEnglishthemselves.Whyelsewouldtheyneedadictionarytotranslatethewordsofthelanguageforthem?TheconceptualizationofanythingasgrandandcomprehensiveastheDictionnairedeI’Academieinvolvestreatingthewrittenformofaspokenlanguageasathingthatcanbelearnedandstudiednotbyforeignersbutbynativespeakersofthatlanguage.It’sapeculiaridea.Bydefinition,whatamonolingualdictionarycodifiesispreciselytheabilitytospeakthatusersofthedictionarypossess.Thesecondpresuppositionofgeneral-purposedictionariesisthatalistofallthewordformsofalanguageispossible.WehavebecomesoaccustomedtoGPDsthatittakesamomenttorealizejustwhatanextraordinarypropositionthatis.Wemaygrantthatdictionariesarealwaysalittlebitout-of-date,thateventhebestamongthemalwaysmisssomethingwewouldhavelikedtoseethere一butweshouldstoptotakesuchthoughtsastepfurther.Totrytocapture“allthewordsofalanguage”isasfutileastryingtocaptureallthedropsofwaterinaflowingriver.Ifyoumanagedtodoit,itwouldn’tbeaflowingriveranymore.Itwouldbeafishtank.OnceLatinhadceasedtobeaspokenlanguage,itbecamepossibletolistallthewordformsoccurringinLatinmanuscripts.Thatwasdonemanytimesover,justasRomanscholarshadcompiledlexiconsofwordsinHomer’sGreek,andBuddhistmonkshadlistedallthewordsin4sacredSanskrittexts.ThemonolingualdictionaryofmoderntimestreatsFrench,orEnglish,orGermanasifitwereLatin一andthatwasthepoint.Itraisesthevernaculartothelevelofthe22 languageofthescholars.ItprovesthatspeakingEnglishrequiresandalsoshowsasmuchcultivationasusingLatin.Themonolingualdictionarywasinthefirstplaceatwo-prongedweaponfortheimprovementandtheassertionofthecommonman.“Improvement”and“assertion”mayseemtogohandinhand,butthoselockedhandsarereallyengagedinanarm-wrestlingmatch.Thefirstalphabeticallistsofwordsinvernacularlanguageswereextensionsoftraditionallanguage-teachingtools:RobertEstienne’sLesMotsFrancoisSelonL’OrdreDesLettres,AinsiQueLesFaultEscrire;TournezEnLatin,PourLesEnfans,firstpublishedin1544,helpedFrench-speakingchildrenlearntherudimentsoftheirlanguageofculture,namelyLatin,butincidentallygavethematoolforwritingthevernacularcorrectly.(SpellinginFrenchwasquitevariableinthesixteenthcentury.AsEstiennewasaprinter,hehadastakeinthestandardizationofthewrittenlanguage.)Overthefollowingcentury,asbothEnglishandFrenchabsorbedmorewordsfromeachotherandfromclassicallanguages,alphabeticallistingsoftechnical,philosophical,andforeignwordsbecamequitepopular.In1604,aCoventryschoolmaster,RobertCawdrey,broughtoutaworkwhoselengthytitleexplainsthesocialandculturalbasisfordictionarymakingeversince:ATableAlphabetical!ofhardusualEnglishwordes,withtheinterpretationthereofbyplaineEnglishwords,gatheredforthebenefit&helpofLadies,gentlewomen,oranyotherunskilfulperson.Wherebytheymoreeas-ilieandbetterunderstandmanyhardEnglishwordes,whichtheyshallheareorreadintheScriptures,Sermons,orelsewhere,andalsobemadeabletodothesameaptlythemselves.Thestepfromcompilingsuchsociallyusefulworksfortheimprovementoftheundereducatedclassestomakingdictionariesofallwordsmayseemnatural.Itcouldbeaccountedforbythespreadofliteracy,thegrowthofthebooktrade,anobsessionwiththemakingofmoreandmorespecializedglossaries,andthewishtobringallthislanguageloretogetherinoneplace.Butthatwouldbearetrospectiveillusion.Intellectually,thereisahugegulfbetweenworks,howeverextensive,thatlaydownthemeaningsof“hard”ortechnicalorforeigntermstohelplesswell-educatedfolk,andanattempttolistallthewordsthatarespokenbythespeakersofagivenlanguage.Tomakethatleapyouhavetothinkofthelanguageyouspeakasafiniteentity.“TheEnglishlanguage”hastobeconceptualizednotasasocialpracticebutasathinginitself.ThatiswhythehistoryoftheEnglishdictionaryisthehistoryoftheinventionofa“language”inthesensethatwenowunderstandthatword.23 Dictionariesalonearen’tresponsibleforthethingificationofnaturallanguages,buttheycrystallizedapeculiarmodernviewofwhatitmeanstohavealanguage.Thespreadoftheprintedbookisalsoamajorfactorintheconvergingcircumstancesandtechnologiesthatgaveustheideasthathavedominatedmodernlanguagestudyeversince,andprofoundlyaffectedourunderstandingofwhattranslatorsdo.GPDs,fromSamuelJohnson’stoWebster’sandfromBrock-haustoRobert,listthewordsthatarepartofthelanguage.Insodoingtheyalsotellusthatthelanguagewespeakisalistofwords.FromitsoriginintheHebrewBible,thenomenclaturistunderstandingofwhatalanguageiswasgivenahuge,definitiveboostbytheemergenceofthemoderntypographicalmind.Whichwordsareentitledtobelistedinadictionarythatgivesnotafield-restrictedsetofwordsbutthewordsofawholelanguage?Well,thewordsthatpeopleuse.Allofthem?Totheextentthatisevenpossible,GPDsforfeittheirhistoricalclaimtobeinstrumentsofimprovement.That’sthearmwrestling.Layingdownwhatwordsmeanandhowtheyshouldbestbeused,aswasCawdrey’slaudableplan,runsdirectlycountertothewiderprojectoflistingallthewordspeopleactuallyusewiththevariedmeaningstheymaygivetothem.That’swhymonolingualreferencedictionarieshavegrownsoimpracticallylarge.ThesolutiontothatproblemisvividlyillustratedbythecareerofoneofGeorgesPerec’sfictionalcharacters:Cinoc…pursuedacuriousprofession.Ashesaidhimself,hewasa“word-killer”：heworkedatkeepingLaroussedictionariesuptodate.Butwhileothercompilerssoughtoutnewwordsandmeanings,hisjobwastomakeroomforthembyeliminatingallthewordsandmeaningsthathadfallenintodisuse.Whenheretired...hehaddisposedofhundredsandthousandsoftools,techniques,customs,beliefs,sayings,dishes,games,nicknames,weightsandmeasures…Hehadreturnedtotaxonomicanonymityhundredsofvarietiesofcattle,speciesofbirds,insectsandsnakes,ratherspecialsortsoffish,kindsofcrustaceans,slightlydissimilarplantsandparticularbreedsofvegetablesandfruit;andcohortsofgeographers,missionaries,entomologists,ChurchFathers,menofletters,generals,Gods&Demonshadbeensweptbyhishandintoeternalobscurity.GPDsofanylanguage,andquiteespeciallythoseusinganalphabeticalscript,arealwaysofpotentiallyinfinitesize,becausenolanguagecanhavefixedboundariesintimeorspace,andthere24 canbenoultimate,definitivedivisionofasocialpracticeintoafinitesetofcomponents.Toescapefromthisdilemmawhilepursuingthebroadprojectofmappingaparticularlanguage,PeterMarkRogetdevisedhisThesaurus(“treasure”inGreek),whichusesnotthearbitraryorderofthealphabetbutthenaturalorderoftheworldasitsorganizingprinciple.Heestablishedsixgeneralclassesof“realthings,”whicharenotmaterialthingsbutideas:AbstractRelations,Space,Matter,IntellectualFaculties,VoluntaryPower,andSentientandMoralPowers.Thesehedividedintocategories,thenbrokedowneachcategoryintolessergroupsofideas,andonlyatthispointdoeshelistallthewordsandexpressionsthatmaybeusedtocommunicatetheidea.“SentientandMoralPowers,”forexample,incorporatesthecategoryof“PersonalAffections,”oneofwhosegroupsisconstitutedby“DiscriminativeAffections,”amongwhichfiguresthesubgroup“Aggravation.”That’swhereyoufindaraftofwordsandphrasesincludinganger,ire,fury,toget}upsomeonesnose,topisssomeoneoff,andtogetsomeone’sgoat—alonglistofsynonymsallofwhichexpresssomequalityorvarietyofaggravation.Roget’sThesaurusisanextraordinaryachievement.ItsstructureharksbacktothoseSumerianwordhoardsonclaytabletssortedbythematiccategory,butasitcontainsveryfewwordslikepolyester,recitative,orcrankset,itoffersnosupportatalltothosewhowouldliketoseealanguageasalistofthenamesofthings.Rather,itdisplaystoaspectaculardegreethesheerredundancyofthevocabularysetthatwehave,withdozensofwordsgivingonlyminutelydifferentshadesofmeaningforalmostexactlythesamething(anger,ire,fury…).Rogetshowslanguagetobearich,illogical,andcomplicatedtoolformakingfineandoftenarbitrarydistinctions—fordiscriminating,separatingout,andsayingthesamethingindifferentways.Thethesauruswasnotdesignedasaresourcefortranslators,butitservestranslationintwodistinctandequallyimportantways.Thefirstiseminentlypractical.BrowsingRoget’slistsofquasi-synonymsandcognatewordshelpsawriter—whomayalsobeatranslatoratthatpoint—toidentifyatermtoexpressamorepreciseshadeofmeaningthanthewordthatfirstcametomind.Inthesecondplace,however,athesaurussaysoneverypagethattoknowalanguageistoknowhowtosaythesamethingindifferentwords.Thatispreciselywhattranslatorsseektodo.Roget’swonderfulThesaurusremindsthemthatinonelanguageaswellasbetweenanytwo,allwordsaretranslationsofothers.25 TENTheMythofLiteralTranslationWithbilingualdictionariestogetthemstartedandRoget’sThesaurustohelpthempolishtheirworktoanicefinish,translatorsoughtnottofindittoohardtotelluswhatthewordsonthepagereallymean.Inpractice,however,it’sthewordsonthepagethathanglikeadarkveiloverwhatapieceofwrittenlanguagemeans.Wordstakenonebyoneobscuretheforceandmeaningofatext,whichiswhyaword-for-wordtranslationisalmostneveragoodjob.Thisisn"tanewinsight:argumentsagainstliteraltranslationgobackalmostasfaraswrittentranslationitself.Afterimmersinghimselfforseveralyearsinthehistoryoftranslation,GeorgeSteinerdiscoveredthatitconsistedverylargelyofrepeatedargumentsoverthissamepoint.“Oversometwothousandyearsofargumentandprecept,”hewrotewithperceptiblefrustration,“thebeliefsanddisagreementsvoicedaboutthenatureoftranslationhavebeenalmostthesame.WhenDonQuixote"sfavoritebedtimebook,AmadisdeGaula,appearedinFrench,forexample,thetranslatorgavehispatrontworeasonsfornothavingstucktotheliteralmeaningsoftheSpanishwords:IbegyoutobelieveIdiditbothbecausemanythingsappearedtometobeinappropriateforpeopleincourtlycircleswithrespecttothecustomsandstandardsofourday,andontheadviceofsomeofmyfriendswhosawfitformetofreemyselffromtheusualpunctiliousnessoftranslators,preciselybecause[thisbook]doesn"tdealwithmaterialwheresuchpersnicketyobservanceisnecessary.Thesetwinjustificationsfor“free”translation—literaltranslationjustisn’tappropriateforthetargetaudienceandisn’tsuitedtotheoriginal,either—werefamiliarthemesinthesixteenthcentury,astheyhadbeenformanycenturiesalready.Infact,fewcommentatorsontranslationhaveevercomeoutinfavorofaliteralorword-for-wordstyle.LiteraltranslationispreciselywhattranslatorsinthebroadWesterntraditiondon’tdo.Butifliteraltranslationisnotawidespreadpractice,whydosomanytranslatorsfeelaneedtoshootitdown—oftenwithoverwhelmingforce?OctavioPaz,theMexicanpoetandmanofletters,statedthestandardviewinmorerecenttimes:“I’mnotsayingaliteraltranslationisimpossible,onlythatit’snotatranslation.”Howbackfardoesitgo?TherearereferencestotheissueinthewritingsofCicero26 (106-43B.C.E.)andHorace(65-8B.C.E.),butalongsentencewrittenbySaintJerome,thefirsttranslatoroftheBibleintoLatinandsubsequentlythepatronsaintoftranslators,canbetakenasthefirstfullformulationofthelopsideddisputebetween“literal”and“free.”In346C.E.,whenhewasneartheendofhislabors,JeromewrotealettertohisfriendPammachiustocounterthecriticismsthathadbeenmadeofthetranslationshehaddonesofar.Jeromesaidthisabouthowhehadgoneabouthistask:Egoenimnonsolumfateor,sedliberavoceprofiteormeininterpretationeGraecorumabsquescriptu’ssanctisubietverborumordomysteriumestnonverbumeverbosedsensumexprimeredesensu.Aprovisionaltranslationwouldgivethefollowingsense:“ThusInotonlyconfessbutofmyownfreevoiceproclaimthatapartfromtranslationsofsacredscripturesfromtheGreek,whereeventheorderofthewordsisamysterium,Iexpressnotthewordforthewordbutthesenseforthesense.”Jerome’sexpressionverbumeverbo,“theword…fortheword,”canbeconsideredsynonymouswith“literal”translation,andhissensumexprimeredesensu,“toexpressthesenseforthesense,”correspondstotheideaof“free”translation.Heproclaimsthathedoesn’tdo“literal”exceptwhentranslating“sacredscripturesfromtheGreek.”Thatseemsclearuntilyourealizethattheexceptionclausedrivesacartandhorsesthroughthemainclaim,becausewhatJeromedidthroughouthislonglifewastotranslatesacredscripture,morethanhalfofwhichhetranslatedfromGreek.Jeromealsosaysheabandonssense-for-sensetranslationnotjustwhentranslatingscripturefromGreekbutspecificallyinthoseplaces“whereeventheorderofthewordsisamysterium.”Asthemeaningofthewordmysteriumisuncertain,there’snofinalagreementastowhatJeromewasreallytalkingabout.AttherootofWesternargumentsabouthowbesttotranslateliesamysterywordthatnobodyisquitesurehowtotranslate.InlateLatinwrittenbyChristians,mysteriummostoftenmeansaholysacrament.Jerome’ssentencethereforeseemstorecommendstickingtotheexactorderofthewordsoftheGreekNewTestamentbecauseitswordorderissacred.LouisKellyunderstandsJerometobesaying:NotonlydoIadmit,butIproclaimatthetopofmyvoice,thatintranslatingfromGreek,exceptfromSacredScripture,whereeventheorderofthewordsisofGod’sdoing,I27 havenottranslatedwordforword,butsenseforsense.ThisreadingsupportstheviewthatJeromeisnotreallydefending“senseforsense”translation,ashefirstseemstobedoing,but“wordforword.”ButwhywouldJerometreatGreekwordorderassacrosanctandnotdothesameforthescriptureshetranslatedfromHebrewandAramaic?The“Greekexception”doesn’tmakealotofsenseifholinessisthedominantreasonformimickingthewordorderofthesource.However,Jeromemayhavemeantsomethingelsebymysterium.Hemayhavewantedtoexplainhisapproachtoanissuethatconfrontseverytranslatoratsomepoint:whattodowithexpressionsthatyoudon’tunderstand.It’sarealproblemforalltranslators,becauseeveryutteranceevermadeinspeechorwritinghassomethingblankorfuzzyoruncertainaboutit.Inordinaryspeaking,listening,andreading,wecopewiththegapsinvariousways.Animpenetrablephrasemaybetreatedasatransmissionerror—amispronunciation,atypo,ascribalglitch.Wehavenotroublereplacingitwithwhatweinstantlyguesstobethetrueform,andinspokeninteractionwedothisautomatically,withoutnoticingthecorrectionsthatwebringtowhatwehear.Whenreading,weusethecontexttopromptameaningthatfits.Wherethecontextisn’tgoodenoughtoallowthis,wejustskipit.Weskip-readallthetime!NobodyknowsthemeaningsofalltheFrenchwordsinLesMiserables,butthat’sneverstoppedanyonefromenjoyingHugo"snovel.However,translatorsarenotgrantedtherighttoskip.That’saseriousconstraint.Ithardlyarisesinmostkindsoflanguageuse;it’soneofthefewthingsthatsetsaproblemfortranslationthatisalmostuniquetoit.Jeromewasworkingwithmanydifferentsources,buthismaintextfortheOldTestamentwastheGreekSeptuagint,translatedfromnowlostHebrewsourcesseveralcenturiesearlier.Accordingtolegend,ithadbeencommissionedaround236B.C.E.byPtolemyII,theGreek-speakingrulerofEgypt,forhisnewlibraryinAlexandria.HehadsentmentoJudeatorounduplearnedJewswhounderstoodthesourcetext,thenwinedanddinedthemandsetthemupatPaphos(ontheislandofCyprus)togetdowntowork.Therewereseventy(orseventy-two)participantsinthisfoundationaltranslationworkshop,whichiswhythetexttheyproducediscalledtheSeptuagint—awayofwriting(nottranslating)theGreekwordmeaning“seventy.”TheSeventywrotenotinthelanguageofHomerandSophoclesbutinkoine,thepopularspokenlanguageoftheHellenisticculturesdottedaroundtheMiddleEast.Theyalsowroteitina28 peculiarway,perhapsbecausekoinewastheirvehicularlanguageandnotcompletelynativetothem.Soitwouldhardlybesurprisingifsomewords,phrases,andsentencesinitbaffledSaintJeromesevencenturieslater.OnetelltalesignoftheSeventy’sdifficultywithGreekisthewaytheyhandledHebrewwordsreferringtoJewishreligiousmysteries.Thatisnotatranslation,butjustthesamewordsoundedoutinadifferentalphabet.Jeromefollowedstyle—hewroteoutapproximatelythesamesoundsinLatinscript,makingCherubim.EnglishBibletranslatorshavedonethesame,givingusaHebrewmasculinepluralform(-im)foraconceptthathasstumpedalltranslatorssincethethirdcenturyB.C.E.Inaddition,thetransferoflettersthroughthreescriptsandfourlanguageshasalteredthesoundofthewordalmostbeyondrecognition,from“kheruvim”to“cherubim.”Thiswayofdealingwithanuntranslatablebynottranslatingitwhilemakingitpronounceable(soundtranslation,homophonictranslation)couldbeconsideredtheprimary,originalmeaningofthetermliteraltranslation.Itrepresentsaforeignwordbyputtinginplaceofthelettersofwhichitismadethecorrespondinglettersofthescriptofthetargetlanguage.Butwedonotcallthatliteraltranslationnowadays—wecallittransliteration.Anditprobablywasn’twhatJeromehadinmindinthefamouspassagefromhislettertoPammachius.What,then,didJeromemeanbymysterium?Here’sanalternativetranslationofthemysterypassagebyacanonofCanterburyCathedral:ForImyselfnotonlyadmitbutfreelyproclaimthatintranslatingfromtheGreek(exceptinthecaseoftheholyscriptureswhereeventheorderofthewordsisamystery)Irendersenseforsenseandnotwordforword.Toputitinaslackerstyle,“Itranslatewordforwordonlywheretheoriginal—evenitswordorder—iscompletelyimpenetrabletome.”Thatis,ofcourse,whattranslatorshavealwaysdone.Forthemostpart,theytransmitthesense;wherethesenseisobscure,thebesttheycando—becauseunlikeordinaryreaderstheyarenotallowedtoskip—istoofferarepresentationoftheseparatewordsoftheoriginal.Thismayevenexplainthestyleofthetranslationoftheextractquotedhere.MaybeDerrida’stranslator,farfromtryingtosoundforeign,wassimplybaffled.What,then,isaliteraltranslation?Notasubstitutionofletters,sincewecallthattransliteration.Aone-for-onesubstitutionoftheseparatedwrittenwords?Maybe.WhenconfrontedwithadecidedlylooseFrenchtranslationof“TheJumpingFrogofCalaverasCounty,”29 MarkTwaindecidedtoback-translatehisstoryintoEnglishusingasingle-wordsubstitutiondeviceintendedastheoppositeofhisFrenchtranslator’soveruseofrephrasing.THEFROGJUMPINGOFTHECOUNTYOFCALAVERASIttherewasonetimehereanindividualknownunderthenameofJimSmiley;itwasinthewinterof’49,possiblywellatthespringof’50,Inomerecollectnotexactly.Thiswhichmemakestobelievethatitwastheoneortheother,itisthatIshallrememberthatthegrandflumeisnotachievedwhenhearrivesatthecampforthefirsttime,butofallsideshewasthemanthemostfondoftobetwhichonehaveseen,bettinguponallthatwhichispresented,whenhecouldfindanadversary;andwhenhenotofitcouldnot,hepassedtothesideopposed.ThisschoolboyprankmocksFrench,Frenchgrammar,theschoolteachingofFrench,andsoforth.ButthemainthingitdemonstratesisOctavioPaz’spoint:“literaltranslation”isnotimpossible,butitisnotatranslation.YoucanonlyunderstandthetargettextifyoucandoareversesubstitutionofthewordsofthesourceandreadtheFrenchthroughitsrepresentationinEnglish.Inotherwords,tomakeanysenseof“TheFrogJumping”youhavetoknowFrench,whereasthewholepurposeoftranslationofanykindistomakethesourceavailabletothosereadersofthetargetwhodonotknowthesourcelanguage.Atranslationthatmakesnosensewithoutrecoursetotheoriginalisnotatranslation.Thetermliteralalsohidesothermysteries.Itisusedtorefernotonlytoatranslationstylethatbarelyexistsbuttosaysomethingaboutthewayanexpressionissupposedtobeunderstood.ThedistinctionbetweentheliteralandfigurativemeaningsofwordshasbeenattheheartofWesterneducationformorethantwomillennia.Theliteralmeaningofanexpressionissupposedtobeitsmeaningpriortoanyactofinterpretation,itsnatural,given,standard,shared,neutral,plainmeaning.However,whenwesay,“Itwasliterallyrainingcatsanddogslastnight,”wemeantheadverbliterallyinafigurativesense.StudiesoflargecorporaofrecordedspeechhaveshownthatthemajorityoftheusesofliteralandliterallyinEnglisharefigurative;similarresultswouldnodoubtbeextractedfromwrittentextsinallEuropeanlanguages.Thisisacuriousirony,becauseexpressionsthatmeanonethinganditsoppositewereathorninthefleshofpreciselythoseGreekthinkerswhoinventedthedistinctionbetweenliteralandfigurativeinthefirstplace.Butlanguage30 islikeputty.Thefigurativeuseofliteralisoneamongathousandcasesofexpressionsmeaningthisanditsopposite,dependingonwhatyouusethemtomean.Literalisanadjectiveformedfromthenounlittera,meaning“letter”inLatin.Aletterinthissenseisawrittensignthatbelongstoasetofsigns,somesubsetsofwhichcanbeusedtocommunicatemeanings.Speechcommunicatesmeaning,writingcommunicatesmeaning—butlettersontheirowndonothaveanymeaning.That’swhataletteris—asignthatismeaninglessexceptwhenusedaspartofastring.Theexpression“literalmeaning,”takenliterally,isacontradictioninterms,anoxymoron,andanonsense.Whatweprobablymeantinthedistantpastwhenweassertedthatsomethingwas“literallytrue”inordertoemphasizethatitwasreallytrue,truetoahigherdegreethanjustbeingtrue,wasthatitwasamongthoserarethingsthatwereworthyofbeing“putintoletters,”ofbeingwrittendown.Alltheusesofliteralwithrespecttomeaningandtranslationimplicitlyvaluewrittennessmorehighlythanoralspeech.Theyarenowamongthesurvivinglinguistictracesofthefantasticchangeinsocialandculturalhierarchiesthattheinventionofwritingbroughtabout.TheycarrytheshadowoftheearlystagesofliteracyintheMediterraneanbasinbetweenthethirdandfirstmillenniaB.C.E.,whenalphabeticscriptsfirstarosetogetherwiththetextsthatthroughtranslationandretranslationhaveshapedandfedWesterncivilizationeversince.Yeteveninthemodernerawedonotalwaysknowquitewhatwemeanwhenweclaimthatsomethingisliterallytrue,andevenlesswhenwecallatranslationaliteralone.Towardtheendofthenineteenthcentury,aFranco-EgyptianmountebankwithamedicaldegreeandatalentforsocialclimbingandfreecompositioninFrenchpublishedanewversionofTheArabianNights.Itwasacommercialandculturalsuccess,anditimpressedmanywritersoftheday,includingMarcelProust.Thetranslator,JosephCharlesMardrus,knewArabic,andheusedsomeArabictextsasthebasisofhisrewritingofthecollectionofancientEasterntales,whichhetitled,inadaringArabisminFrench,LesMilleNuitsetUneNuit,withasubtitleasclearascanbe:Traductionlitteraleetcompletedutextearabe,“TheThousandNightsandOneNight:ACompleteandLiteralTranslationoftheArabicText.”Thesubtitleislessadescriptionthananassertionofstatus.Callingthework“complete”isobviouslyintendedtogiveitahighervaluethanpreviousversions一butwhyshould“literal”haveseemedtoMardrusaneffectivewayofenhancingthestatusofhiswork?31 Itwasn’taslip:Mardrus’sprefaceemphasizesandmagnifiesthemeaningofhissubtitle:Onlyonehonestandlogicalmethodoftranslationexists:impersonal,barelymodulatedliteralism...Itisthegreatestguaranteeoftruth...Thereaderwillfindhereapure,inflexibleword-for-wordversion.TheArabictexthassimplychangedalphabet:hereitisinFrenchwriting,that’sall…Mardruswasnotaconventionaltranslationtheorist,andscholarsofMiddleEasternlanguagesclaimedthathewasnotatranslator,either.AprofessorofArabicattheSorbonnedemonstratedthattherewerenotextualsourcesformanypassagesandstoriesinMardrus’sentertainingandreadablecompilation.ButMardruswasapersonageontheParisianculturalsceneandwouldnotsuffersuchslingsandarrowswithoutreturningfire.Friendscametohisdefense:AndreGidearguedthatdespitethedemonstrationsofProfessorGaudefroy,Mardrus’sworkwas“moreauthenticthantheoriginal.”Thetranslator’sownripostebuiltonGide’sextraordinaryclaim.AcademiccriticslearnedArabicintheclassroom,notfromlivingintheMiddleEast.Tocarryoutatranslationofthiskindproperly,togiveadefinitivereflectionoftheArabicmindanditsgenius…youmustbebornandyoumusthavelivedintheArabicworld;…totranslatedecentlythespiritandtheletterofstoriesofthiskind,youmusthaveheardthemspokenoutloudinalocalaccent,withethnicgesturesandappropriateintonationbystorytellersinfullpossessionoftheirmaterial.Mardrus’stranslationwasthereforethe“literal”versionofanessentiallyoralsource.HiswrittenwordinFrenchstandsforthespokenwordofArabicculture.IfacademiccriticsinsistonhavingatextualsourcefortheauthenticArabianNights,whichhewrote,well,noproblem:“Oneday,inordertopleaseGaudefroy,IwanttosettleonceandforalltheArabictextofTheArabianNightsbytranslatingmyFrenchtranslationintoArabic.”Whatstandsoutfromthisliterarysquabbleisthattheideaofwhataliteraltranslationconsistsofisculturallyconditionedtoahighdegree.Mardruswantedtosaythathisworkwasauthentic,thatitgavethetruevoiceoftheArabicculturethatherightlyorwronglyregardedashisspecialnativeprivilegetopossess.Hissolutiontotheargument一tomanufactureasourcetogivetextualscholarstheevidencetheydemanded一mayappearquitenutty,butitisnotillogicalfromMardrus’spointofview.WhatallotherWesterncommentatorsmeanby“literaltranslation,”ontheotherhand,is32 unrelatedtoauthenticity,truthfulness,orplainnessofexpression.Itreallyrefersonlytothewrittenformofwords,andevenmoreparticularlytotherepresentationofwordsinanalphabeticscript.Whenthattechnologyforthepreservationofthoughtwasstillrelativelynew,andforthosemanycenturieswhenitwasnotwidelysharedandwasusedforarestrictedrangeofneedsandpursuits(law,religion,philosophy,mathematics,astronomy,and,occasionally,theentertainmentoftheelite),itmadesensetoattachhighprestigetothewrittennessofwrittentexts.Butinaworldofnear-universalliteracy,that’stosay,forthelasttwoorthreegenerations,wherealphabeticscriptisusedforentirelyordinarytasks(tolabelpackagedfood;toadvertiseunderwear;andtowriteblogs；horrorcomics,；andpulpfiction),thefactthatsomethingisworthyofbeingwrittendowninlettersgivesitnoaddedvalueatall.“Literal”isn’t“WordMagic”anymore,it’sjustahangoverfromthepast.Thetermsofdebateabouttranslationandmeaningneedtobeupdated,andthelong-lastingscrapbetweenliteralandfreeshouldnowbelaidtorest.However,thereisoneimportantareawherethetranspositionofmeaningsatthelevelofindividualwordsisavaluable,inescapabletool:inschooland,moreparticularly,inforeign-languagelessons.Therearemanydifferentwaysofteachinglanguages.TheOttomansroundedupyoungstersinconqueredlandsandbroughtthembackasslavestobetrainedas“languageboys，’’inIstanbul.Modemdirectmethodsaregentlerbutrelyonthesameunderstandingofhowlanguagesarebestlearned—throughtotalimmersioninabrainlinguistics,akindofbaptismofthebrain.ThroughouttheperiodoflearnedLatininWesternEurope,immersionwasnotanoption.TherewasnoenvironmentinwhicheverybodyspokeLatinasanativetongue,andsothelanguagehadtobetaughtbyteachers,inclassrooms,throughwriting.ReprisingRomanmethodsintheteachingofGreek,theEuropeanlanguage-teachingtraditionwasheavilyskewedtowardtheuseoftranslationasthemeansofimpartingwrittenskillsintheforeigntongue,andalsoasameansofassessingstudents’progresstowardthataim.TheteachingofmodernEuropeanlanguagesinschoolsanduniversitiesgotoffthegroundtowardtheendofthenineteenthcenturyandborroweditsmethodsfromthetranslation-basedtraditionsintheteachingofLatinandGreek.Itisgenerallyreckonedtohavebeenadisaster.However,iftheaimoflearningLatin(orFrench,orGerman)istobeabletoreadtextsinthatlanguagefluentlyandalsoperhapstobeableto33 composeandthustocorrespondwithotherusersofLatinorFrenchorGerman(whosenativelanguagesmaybequitevaried),thentranslationandcompositionskillsarequiteappropriateeducationalaims.Teachingaforeignlanguagewhenanactuallinguisticenvironmentisnotavailableandintheabsenceoftechnologiesthatallowalinguisticenvironmenttobesimulated(television,radio,film,soundrecording,andtheWeb)wasobligedtorelyonwriting—onslates,onchalkboards,inexercisebooksorinprint.Withonlythosetoolsavailableit’snotobvioushowtoexplainthattheexpressionyfuiQ-fiSOrNiiCMistobeunderstoodas“Ihaveabighouse”unlessyoualsoexplainthatitcanbebrokendowninto“Atmebighouse”andusethisitem-by-itemrepresentationoftheforeigninEnglishdisguisetointroducebasicgrammaticalfeatures—forinstance,thefactthatRussiandoesn’thaveadefiniteorindefinitearticle;thatadjectivesagreeinnumber,gender,andcasewiththenounstheyqualify;thatthereisnoplacefortheverbtobeinaRussianexpressionofthiskind;andthatpossessionmaybeexpressedbyaprepositionbeforeapersonalpronoun,whichhastobeputintotheappropriategrammaticalcase.Indeed,thegrammarexplanationI’vejustgivenisalmostmeaninglessuntilyouhaveseenitinactioninawrittenexpression.34 AppendixII中文译文第九章认识词典译者总是会用到词典。我有一整套词典，摆在最前面的是《牛津英语词典》（OxfordEnglishDictionary)两卷和《罗热词库》（Roget’sThesaurous），其他的就是单语词典、双语词典，以及法语习语、俄语谚语和法律术语等图解词典。这些词典是我永远的朋友，它们告诉我很多新奇的事物。虽然我能从词典中找到答案并获得许多帮助，但这并不意味着没有词典，翻译就不复存在。事实恰好相反。如果没有译者，西方的词典就不复存在。最早的写作范例是记录重要事物的核心词汇双语列表。这些双语词汇表是由文士拟定，为了保持双语翻译中的一致性，也为了帮助学员提高翻译技能，这些也是现行双语和多语种词汇表的主要目的。正如法国香水制造商利用自己的贸易术语专用数据库，帮助译者向出口市场制作宣传资料一样，机床制造商、医学专家、以及国际商法领域的律师事务所也都纷纷效仿。这些翻译工具给译者带来了极大的帮助，但它们并非翻译工作的起源。它们是长期翻译实践积累的成果，而非翻译技能的来源。苏美尔人编著的双语词典分门别类地写在泥版书上——包括职业、亲属、法律、木质工件、簧片工件、陶瓷、兽皮、铜器、其他金属、家养动物和野生动物、身体部位、石头、植物、鸟类和鱼类、纺织品、地名以及食物和饮料，苏美尔征服者阿卡德人的每一个词汇在词典里都有对应表达。由于词典依据领域分门别类，因此可以直接称其为SPD，即“专用”词典——比如像《商务法语词典》（BusinessFrench）、《油气工业俄语词典》（RussianfortheOilandGasIndustries）、《法律术语德语词典》（GermanLegalTerminology）等等。其中一些是多语词典（许多当代专用词典也是这样），它们给出阿莫里特文、胡里特文、艾拉米特文、乌加里特文和其他文明社会所说的语言的对应词汇，虽然有些民族与阿卡德人偶有冲突，但只要与其有贸易往来，多语词典中也会囊括他们的语言词汇。从古老的美索不达米亚地区到中世纪后期的欧洲，双语词汇表的目的不曾改变：规范翻译实践，造就下一代译者。值得一提的是，它们调和了征服者与被征服者之间的语言文化矛盾。直到印刷本问世，西方社会才开始出现使用统一语言定义的综合词汇表或通用词汇表。虽然西方单语词典——即“通用”词典，或简称GPD——从旧时翻译工作者必备的双语词汇表衍生而来，但它对我们在语言的认识方式上产生了巨大的影响。第一本真正意义上35 的GPD是17世纪由法兰学术院出版的（1694年第一卷，字母A-字母L）；而首部实现从字母A到字母Z的词汇编排的是塞缪尔·约翰逊（SamuelJohnson）所著写的《英语大词典》（DictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage），出版于1755年。这些不朽的作品以一种独特的、现代化的方式介绍了法语和英语两种语言的产生。一旦它们出版发行，其他语言也必须拥有自己的GPD——如果没有，它就不算是一门真正的语言。这不仅仅是一种角逐，而且还在各语种之间引发了激烈的竞争，为每种“国家语言”创造出国家大词典。用语言编写所有词汇释义表的需求表达了一种全新的概念，即：语言究竟是什么，这个概念从英语和法语的发展过程中衍生而出。中国传统文明完全不同于此。其词汇的悠久历史与古代史籍的评注写作传统在本质上有密切联系，但却与外语翻译没有丝毫关联，这一点似乎与希腊文明一样，对该方面兴趣甚少。早期汉语词典是根据语域编制而成的，而且定义略显模糊，比如：如果某人叫我叔父，我则称他为侄子。（引自《尔雅》，公元前3世纪）。与我们现在所使用的词典不同的是，要在《尔雅》里查询词汇实属不易，因为其给出的许多定义过于模糊而显得毫无用处，它仅仅是一种利于了解更多古代史籍知识的工具，以便精炼口语与写作。第二种早期汉语词典是文言文词汇表，出现于公元1世纪，其中列举的汉字是根据其基本字形（或称“图像基础”）进行归类的。这些著作并没有标注词汇的发音，它们的主要用途是阐释古代文本史籍。第三种早期汉语词典是韵脚词典——专供古代考生查询汉字押韵的手册，因为在古代考试中押韵技巧是其中的一个考点。直到17世纪，一个姓梅的状元发明了一种汉字分类法，在某种程度上使汉字检索快捷化，这比基督传教士编写出第一部西式双语（汉语-拉丁语、汉语-葡萄牙语、汉语-西班牙语、汉法）词典要早些年。传统汉语字典、词典和词汇表并未像西方词典一样竭力列出“全部的汉语词汇”，它们只是按照语义、语音或字形归类列举汉字。这些词典之间的显著差别让我们更加清晰地认识到，西方词典的编写也是一种“区域性”传统，缘起于我们已有文本的特殊本质。词典究竟有何用处？既然双语词汇表的用途显而易见，那么单语词典呢？第一种假设通过举例子来说明：使用通用词典似乎意味着使用者自己并不是十分了解这门语言，好像从某种程度上来说，英语对于以其为母语的人而言本身就是一门外语。为什么他们也需要一本词典翻译单词呢？任何事物一旦概念化，就变得像《学术词典》（DictionnairedeI’Academie）一样大而全面，它可将某种口语的书面形式当作一本可供以该语言为母语的人士学习研究而不是由外国人使用的词典。这可真是一个奇特的想法。顾名思义，编写单语词典的目的在于让使用者具备准确的表达能力。36 第二种关于通用词典的假设是：人们可以列出一门语言中的所有词汇。由于我们对通用词典已太过熟悉，所以要明白它特殊的意义需要花费一点时间。也许我们认为如今词典已经有些过时，因为即使是最完备的词典也总会有我们查不到的词汇，但是我们应该摈弃这种想法。想要掌握“一门语言的所有词汇”是徒劳无益的,如同试图汇集起河流里的所有水滴一样。如果你做到了，它就不再是一条静止的河流。也许只有鱼缸才会满足你的要求吧。一旦拉丁语不再是一门口语，那么想要列举出拉丁语手稿中的所有词汇倒成为了一种可能。在荷马（Homer）所在的希腊时期，罗马学者经过多次尝试编写出词汇表，佛教僧侣也记录了梵语经文里的所有词汇。重点是，现代单语词典将法语，英语和德语视为拉丁语。它将方言提升到学者语言层次。这证明了说英语要求像说拉丁语一样进行大量的修习。单语词典不仅对普通人坚持学习语言有所帮助，而且还有助于他们取得进步，最先起到了双管齐下的作用。尽管“进步”与“坚持”看起来密不可分，但实际上真正起作用的还是词典使用者本人。第一个方言词汇字母表是传统语言教学工具的延伸。罗贝尔·埃斯蒂安（RobertEstienne）写了一本书，叫《按字母排序以及书写错误的法语单词，应换成拉丁语供孩子们阅读》（LesMotsFrancoisSelonL’OrdreDesLettres,AinsiQueLesFaultEscrire;TournezEnLatin,PourLesEnfans），于1544年首次出版，这本书帮助了说法语的孩子学习法语基础文化知识，即：拉丁语，这恰好又为他们提供了一种正确书写法语的工具（在十六世纪，法语拼写尚未完全统一。当时埃斯蒂安是个印刷匠，他赌定书面语一定会被标准化。）在接下来的一个世纪，英语和法语互相引进更多的词汇，它们还从古典语言、技术、哲学及外语词汇的字母列表中汲取新词，于是这些外语词汇受到很大的欢迎。1604年，考文垂大学校长——罗伯特·考德里（RobertCawdrey）出版了一部作品，他起了一个冗长的题目解释了编写词典的社会背景和文化底蕴：这是一份由简易词汇解释不常用的英语单词的字母表，其收集的词汇对女士、男士或是任何一个不熟悉词典的人都有帮助。由此，当他们在其他地方听到或读到经文或布道词的时候，便可更容易或更轻松地理解较难懂的英语单词，而且这种方法也适用于他们。以前编写词典是为了帮助那些未受过良好教育的阶层人士方便社交，后来编者试图编写囊括所有词汇的词典，这个转变过程看起来似乎非常自然。这也许是得益于人们读写能力的普及、图书贸易的发展、对编写更多专业术语表的执着以及对所有的语言知识融汇于一本书的期望。但那只能是一种遥不可及的幻想。客观地说，这两种词典之间存在巨大的差异，然而无论有多大的差异，那些“晦涩难懂”的词汇或技术术语或外语术语的解释对于从未受过良好教育的市民来说的确受益无穷，并且编者还尝试列举出人们日常所说语言的所有词汇。37 要想实现这种飞跃，除非将你所说的语言视为一种有限的实体。“英语语言”不能被视为是社会实践的概念，而要将其当作一种自在之物。就我们现在所理解的“语言”这个词汇意义而言，英语词典的发展历史就是“语言”的创造历史。就单从词典本身的意义来说，它并不是为了将自然语言具体化，而是以一种独特的现代化视角诠释了掌握语言的意义所在。在融合知识和技术方面，印刷本的传播也是一个主要原因，它让我们萌生了此后要掌握现代语言学习方法的思想，并且对我们理解翻译活动产生了深远的影响。无论是塞缪尔·约翰逊的通用词典还是韦伯斯特的通用词典，也不管是布罗克·豪斯的通用词典还是罗伯特的通用词典，都列出了构成语言的词语。他们这么做也是在告诉我们，我们所说的语言就是一张词汇表。《希伯来圣经》（HebrewBible）里记录了语言的起源，其中提到现代印刷思想的兴起，极大地促进了术语命名者对语言的理解。究竟哪类词汇才有资格被列入到提供整套语言词汇而非限定单词领域的词典中呢？答案是——人类正在使用的词汇。那么所有的都是吗？从某种程度上来说，可能都是，因为通用词典丧失了其推动文明进步的历史诉求。这是关键因素。正如考德里那值得赞赏的计划一样，给词汇下定义以及说明如何最佳使用该词汇恰好与那些不切实际的计划相反，那些计划试图列举出人们实际生活中所用到的全部词汇，并且将一个单词同时赋予很多种意思，这就是为什么单语参考词典会如此笨重又不实用。乔治·珀雷克（GeorgesPerec）通过描写其笔下虚构角色的职业生涯，生动地展示了解决上述问题的方法：奇诺克（Cinoc）所从事的职业非比寻常，正如他自己所说，他是一个“单词杀手”：他的工作就是持久更新《拉鲁斯词典》（LarousseDictionaries）。当其他词典编者在寻求新词汇和新词义时，他的职责就是删除词典中的废词以便为添置的新词腾出位置。到奇诺克退休时，他已经处理了成百上千条词汇，包括工具、技巧、习俗、信仰、谚语、菜肴、游戏、昵称及度量衡等类别里的词汇。他重新将数百个品种的无名词汇进行分类，包括牛、蛇、鸟类、昆虫、相当一部分的鱼类、甲壳类、极少数不同的植物、特殊品种的蔬菜和水果；而地理学家、传教士、昆虫学家、教父、文人、将军、上帝与恶魔等这类词汇都被他亲手删除了，永远不再使用。任何语种的通用词典，尤其是那些由字母表组成的词典，体积大小永无限制，因为任何语言都不受时间和空间的限制，而且也根本不存在一条绝对的、明确的分界线，可以将社会实践分成有限的组成成分。为了在实行制定特定语言的宏观计划时避免这个难题，彼得·马38 克·罗热（PeterMarkRoget）编写了《罗热词库》（希腊语是“宝藏”的意思），这本词典并没有按照字母表排列的顺序，而是将单词原本的内在含义作为它的编写原则。他对“实物”词汇进行了六种总的分类，这些词汇不代表实质性的物体而是抽象的概念：抽象关系、空间、素材、心智能力、主观能力、意识与道德心。然后他将这些分类好了的单词打乱顺序，分成更细化的概念小组，只有这样他才能列举出所有的单词和表达，方便人们交流思想。比方说：“意识与道德心”涵盖了“个人情感”类别的词汇，这一组词汇由“不同程度的情感”词汇构成，其中以“激怒”这一小组的词汇为例。你可以从中学习到很多单词和短语，包括生气、愤怒、狂怒、指着某人鼻子破口大骂、叫某人滚开、把某人气炸了等一长串形容某人相当生气的同义词，这些不同的词汇分别表达了生气的不同程度。《罗热词库》是一部非凡的杰作。其结构的由来要追溯到那些按主题分类刻在泥板书上的苏美尔词汇，但由于它并没有囊括诸如涤纶，宣叙调，曲柄之类的词汇，所以对于那些视语言为词汇名称列表的人来说，它几乎没有丝毫的用处。确切点说，该词典极力向我们展示我们现在所用的词汇集类过于冗长，它针对同一个事物提供了多个单词，这些单词的意思只在层次上有细微的差别（生气、愤怒、狂怒⋯⋯）。罗热阐明语言其实是一种丰富的、复杂的且无逻辑可言的工具，因此讲究细致的差别——这样便可轻松地区分和辨别近义词，有利于使用多种表达方式描述同一个事物。《罗热词库》不是专为译者设计的一种辅助工具，而是在以两种不同且同等重要的方式为翻译服务。第一种方法尤为实用——翻阅罗热的同义词同根词词汇表，它可以帮助作者或是译者选定更恰当的术语，所选词汇可能比头脑中最初想到的单词更能表达精确的含义。而第二种则是在词典的每一页上都注明“掌握一门语言就是知道如何使用不同的单词表达同一个事物”。这才是一名译者真正应该做到的。罗热的杰作——《罗热词库》让译者明白不管是一种语言还是在任意两种语言之间，所有的词汇互为译本。39 第十章直译的未解之谜双语词典方便译者展开翻译工作，《罗热词库》则帮助他们在工作上更加精益求精，有了这二者的结合，译者应该觉得向读者解释书上的单词意思并不难。然而实际上，这些难解词汇仿佛给原文语义蒙上了一层黑纱，令读者疑惑不解。若逐字翻译，不仅会丢失原文的韵味而且会模糊其本意，这就是为什么直译并不是一种十分可取的方法。这已经不是一个新观点了：反对直译的争论可能要追溯到笔译本身。乔治·斯坦纳（GeorgeSteiner）潜心钻研了几年翻译史，他发现关于直译与意译之争从未停歇过。“从两千多年来的争论与言教来看，”他满怀一种难以掩饰的失落感写道，“人们所表达出来的对翻译本质的看法和分歧自始至终从未改变。”比如，当堂·吉诃德（DonQuixote）最喜爱的床头灯书籍《阿马迪斯·德·高拉》（AmadisdeGaula）出版了法语译本的时候，译者向他的忠实读者解释了他坚决不将西班牙语直译出来的两点原因：我恳求你相信我，我这么做出于两个理由。首先是考虑到了宫廷人士的说话方式和日常礼数，我觉得这本书并不适合直译，而且我的朋友建议我，正因为（这本书）没有要求翻译时不能做丝毫的变通，所以对于我这种不循规蹈矩的译者来说再合适不过了。这两句为“意译”所做的辩词——直译既不适合目标受众也不适用于原文——在十六世纪的辩论主题中很常见，因为它们在几百年前就已经是一种流行的辩论说辞。实际上，几乎没有几个翻译评论员支持直译或逐字翻译作风。因为在西方普遍的传统里，最不受欢迎的就是直译。但是如果直译不是一种普遍的译法，为什么还有很多译者觉得有必要以绝对优势去谴责直译？近代以来，墨西哥诗人兼文学家奥克塔维奥·帕斯（OctavioPaz）阐述了一个标准的观点：“我并不是说直译无法为人们接受，只是它并不能算是一种翻译。”这种说法是否有历史根据呢？关于这个问题此处提供一些西塞罗（Cicero）（公元前106年—公元前43年）和贺拉斯（Horace）（公元前65年—公元前8年）写的参考文献，但是圣·杰罗姆（SaintJerome）曾写过一段话，他是第一个将《圣经》（Bible）翻译成拉丁语的人，后来众多翻译者都成了他的拥护者，他的言论第一次为“直译”和“意译”一面倒的争论做了一个全面的、系统的阐述。公元346年，临近杰罗姆退休时期，他写了一封信给他的朋友帕玛丘斯以40 驳斥别人指责他曾在翻译中出现的“错误和疏漏”。杰罗姆说这与他如何完成希腊经文翻译有关：Egoenimnonsolumfateor,sedliberavoceprofiteormeininterpretationeGraecorumabsquescriptu’ssanctisubietverborumordomysteriumestnonverbumeverbosedsensumexprimeredesensu.这句话翻译出来暂且是这样的意思：“因此，我不仅承认而且毫无顾忌地宣布，除了翻译词序排列很神秘的希腊经书，我翻译时一般采取意译而非直译。”杰罗姆所说的“逐字翻译”可以被认为是“直译”的同义词，而他说的“意义的传达”对应的就是“意译”的概念。他声称，除了翻译“希腊经文”，他不采用直译。这个观点看似毫不含糊，直到你意识到“除了”这句话其实是站不住脚的，因为杰罗姆毕生的精力都花在了经文翻译上面，而且其中一大半都是希腊经文的翻译。杰罗姆还说他只有在翻译希腊经文时才会舍弃意译，尤其是碰到“连词序排列都很神秘”的时候，更无法进行意译。由于此处“神秘”的所指意思不明确，所以关于杰罗姆所说一番话的真正含义，至今没有最终定论。因此，西方界为如何最佳翻译而争论不休的根源在于，没有人能够恰当地译出“神秘”这个单词的含义。在后期基督徒所写的拉丁文中，mysterium通常意味着圣礼。因此杰罗姆的一席话似乎是建议翻译《希腊文新约圣经》（GreekNewTestament）的时候要坚持原文的词序，因为词序神圣不可侵犯。路易斯·凯莉（LouisKelly）理解了杰罗姆的意思，解释道：我坦陈，而且还引吭高声地宣布，在翻译希腊文的时候，除了由上帝安排词序的宗教经典以外，我都没有直译，而是采取的意译。这个阐释符合杰罗姆的观点，证明他并没有真正的反对“意译”，只是最初看起来似乎是在支持“直译”。但是为什么杰罗姆只视希腊经文的词序神圣不可侵犯，却不包括他翻译的希伯来语和阿拉姆语的经文呢？如果出于神圣的主要原因而去照搬原文的词序，那么“希腊特例”就讲不通了。然而，杰罗姆所说的“神秘”应该还有其他意思。他也许是想解释在某些情况下，他解决问题的方法适用于每一个译者，比如：当你遇到了你理解不了的词汇表达。这对所有的译者确确实实是个大问题，因为无论是在口语还是写作表达中，多少都会有一些遗漏、模棱两可或含糊不清之处。在一般的口语、听力和阅读当中，我们采取不同的方式以处理这些纰漏。若一个词组让人费解也许会被视为是在传达时候出现了错误——可能是拼写错误、印刷错误或抄写错误。41 一般来说，我们不难猜出正确的拼写形式并以此替代错误的单词，而且在口语交流中我们会下意识地这么做，以致没有注意到对方所做的纠正。在阅读的时候，我们利用语境推测恰当的单词，领悟文章意思。而当文中的语境不足以帮助我们猜到意思的时候，我们就此忽略，不做追究。所以我们一直都在跳读！即使读者不懂《悲惨世界》（LesMiserables）里出现的所有法语单词的意思，也不能阻止任何一个读者去欣赏雨果（Hugo）的小说。然而，译者却没有跳读的权利。这是一个严重的制约。在运用大多数语言的时候几乎不会出现这种情况；却唯独为翻译活动设置了这道障碍。杰罗姆同时翻译很多不同的原文文本，他为《旧约全书》（OldTestament）翻译的主要原文来源于希腊的《七十士译本》（Septuagint），那是从几百年前、现如今已丢失了的希伯来语版圣经翻译过来的。相传，大约在公元前236年，托勒密二世（PtolemyII）——一个只会说希腊语的埃及统治者，想为他在亚历山大港（Alexandria）的新藏书库添置新书，因此委托他人翻译那本希伯来语版圣经。他派人去朱迪亚（Judea）招集知识渊博、认识原文的犹太人，热情款待他们，然后安排他们在帕福斯（Paphos）（塞浦路斯的一座小岛）工作。在这间原始的翻译工作坊里一共有七十（或是七十二）个参与者，这就是为什么他们翻译出来的文本被称作《七十士译本》——写作希腊语是“七十”的意思（而非翻译得来的）。这七十士并不是用荷马和索福克勒斯（Sophocles）所在时期的希腊语言翻译的，而是以阿提喀方言为主的希腊共通语所著，这是遍布中东地区且独具希腊文化特色的流行口语。他们的写作方式也别具一格，这也许是因为共通语是他们的媒介语而且不完全是他们所特有的语言。所以七百年以后，圣·杰罗姆为译作中的一些单词、短语和句子而感到困惑也不足为奇。一个明显的迹象表明，七十士在把《圣经》翻译成希腊语的过程中，所遇到的困难就是如何处理与犹太教奥秘相关的希伯来语词汇。他们的处理方式并不能算是一种翻译，只是将陌生词汇替换成了另一个同音异形的单词。杰罗姆就效仿了这种方式——选用近乎相同读音的拉丁字母，完成了《四翼天使》（Cherubim）的翻译。英语《圣经》的译者也遵循此法，为公元前三世纪以后的所有在翻译中遇到挑战的译者提出了希伯来语中阳性复数形式（-im）概念。此外，从“kheruvim”到“cherubim”，经过三文四语地字母转换，已经改变了单词的发音，几乎无法识别。这种不译出难译词汇而是以相似读音替代的处理方式（音译、谐音翻译）可被视为初级原始的术语直译法。用这种方法可以表示外来语，即通过把源语言的字母脚本替换成相对应的目标语言的字母脚本。现如今我们不称此为直译——我们称之为音译。然而，根据他给帕42 马修斯写的信中提到的那么出名的一段，这也许并不是杰罗姆想要收得的成效。那么杰罗姆所说的“神秘”究竟意味着什么？此处有一位坎特伯雷大教堂（CanterburyCathedral）的教士写得关于那神秘一段的变译：“我本人不仅承认而且坦率地宣布，在翻译希腊语的时候（除了遇到《圣经》里神秘的词序排列的情况），我建议意译而不是直译。”按一种懒汉思维来说，“我只在原文——甚至是语序——令我完全摸不着头脑的时候才直译。”显然，很多译者也都是这么做的。大多数情况下，他们选择传达意思；当遇到难解的意思时，他们唯一能做的就是——因为不像原文读者一样允许跳读——将原文的各个单词的替换成其他词语。这甚至能解释此处摘录的引文翻译的方式。也许德里达的翻译人员还没有尝试音译，就被轻易地难住了。那么什么是直译呢？因为我们称直译为音译，所以它不等同于字母的替代。难道是将原文和译文的单词一一对应？或许是吧。当看到《卡拉维拉斯县的跳蛙》（TheJumpingFrogofCalaverasCounty）出现毫不精确的法语版译文时，马克·吐温（MarkTwain）决定使用词汇替换法将他们的法语译文回译成英文，以此反对法语译者过度改述他的作品。THEFROGJUMPINGOFTHECOUNTYOFCALAVERASIttherewasonetimehereanindividualknownunderthenameofJimSmiley;itwasinthewinterof’49,possiblywellatthespringof’50,Inomerecollectnotexactly.Thiswhichmemakestobelievethatitwastheoneortheother,itisthatIshallrememberthatthegrandflumeisnotachievedwhenhearrivesatthecampforthefirsttime,butofallsideshewasthemanthemostfondoftobetwhichonehaveseen,bettinguponallthatwhichispresented,whenhecouldfindanadversary;andwhenhenotofitcouldnot,hepassedtothesideopposed.这个调皮的恶作剧嘲弄了法语、法语语法，还有学校的法语教学等等。但它主要证明了奥克塔维奥·帕斯的观点：“直译”并非无法为人们所接受，只是它不能算是一种翻译。只有在把目标语言回译成源语时，仍能够保留源语词汇，并且能够通过回译文本读懂法语，才能算是真正地理解了目标文本。换句话说，要读懂《跳蛙》你必须认识法语，然而不管是哪种语言的翻译，其目的在于将原文译成目标语读者可接受的语言，因为他们不懂原文。不根据原文进行的翻译毫无意义，且不算是一种翻译。关于直译一说还隐藏其他的未解之谜。直译与翻译方法无关，而是一种比较容易理解的表达方式。43 两千多年来，单词的字面意思与引申意思之间的区别一直是西方教育界的核心问题。任何一种表达方法的字面意思是其最常见的、特定的、标准的、广泛接受的、中立的及原本的意思，应该在翻译时优先考虑。然而，当我们说，“Itwasliterallyrainingcatsanddogslastnight”，这里literally作为副词，使用的是它的引申义。大规模口语录音语料库的研究表明，在英语中，literal和literally大部分情况下使用引申义；无疑，这在所有欧洲语言的书面文本中也可以得出相似的结论。该结论真是奇怪又讽刺，因为同时具有正反两种意义的这类表达方式，恰好是那些希腊思想家的眼中钉,肉中刺，他们最先发现了字面意思和引申意思的区别。但是语言就像油灰一样易变。literal的引申义只是千万引申意义中的一种，既可表达正面意思，也可表达与之相反的意思，这取决于你用它来表达什么。形容词literal由名词littera变化而来，在拉丁语里是“字母”的意思。字母在这层意思上理解为一套语言符号里的书面标志，它们是一些可以用于表达意思的子集。说话可以表达思想，写作也可以思想——但是字母本身并没有任何意义。这就是字母的意义所在——除非它成为语符列的一部分，否则它只是一个没有意义的符号。从字面上来看，“字面意思”的表达方式确实有矛盾，属于矛盾修饰法及谬论。很久以前，当我们断言某事“千真万确”时，是为了强调它的确很真实，也可以说当时值得用文字记录的真实事件并不多见，一旦被记录下来，其可信度就不再简单地停留在“值得相信”这一层次了。凡是与涵义和翻译相关的文字用法要比口头表述更具有书面价值。如今，这些都是幸存下来的部分语言痕迹，记录了由文字发明所带来的社会及文化层次的巨大变化。它们受到了早期地中海盆地在公元前3000年到公元前1000年的文字记载的影响，当时字母脚本首次与经过翻译与重译的文本同时出现，塑造并孕育了西方文明。然而即使在当代，当我们宣称某事是千真万确的时候，我们也并不总是十分清楚自己说的这句话的意思，尤其当我们遇到直译时，甚至变得更不容易理解。到了十九世纪末，一个获得医学学位的法裔埃及江湖郎中，善于攀高结贵，法语行文流畅，他发行了新版的《一千零一夜》（TheArabianNights）。无论是从商业方面还是文化方面来说，这都是一次巨大的成功，而且这给当时的很多作家留下了深刻的印象，包括马塞尔·普鲁斯特（MarcelProust）。翻译家约瑟夫·夏尔·马尔德鲁斯（JosephCharlesMardrus）懂阿拉伯语，他曾以一些阿拉伯语文本为基础，改写了古老的东方传说故事集，并大胆地为《阿拉伯之夜》起了一个法语书名《一千零一夜》（LesMilleNuitsetUneNuit），并添加了清晰易懂的副标题《一千零一夜：一部阿拉伯语文本的完整直译本》（Traductionlitteraleet44 completedutextearabe）。副标题的作用不是简单的描述而是对译著地位的肯定。称之为“完整的”译著，相比较之前的版本而言，明显是有意赋予其更高的价值——但为什么说“直译”看似是马尔德鲁斯抬高他译著地位的有效方式呢？这并不是出现了纰漏，而是马尔德鲁斯在序言里强调并夸大了副题的存在意义：“只存在一种可靠且符合逻辑的翻译方法：客观的、不拘泥于字句的⋯⋯这才能最大限度地保留原文的真实性⋯⋯读者将会发现一个纯粹的、死板的直译本。阿拉伯语文本仅仅是改变了英文字母：这是法语写作，就这样⋯⋯”马尔德鲁斯并不是一位传统的翻译理论家，研究中东语言的学者声称他更算不上是一个翻译家。一位阿拉伯语教授在索邦大学（Sorbonne）论证了马尔德鲁斯编译的书虽然趣味性浓、可读性强，但是很多短文和故事并没有文本来源的考证。马尔德鲁斯在巴黎文化领域中也算是一位名人，所以他对遭受的这些明枪暗箭给予了一定的回击。他的朋友们纷纷为他辩护：安德烈·纪德（AndreGide）争论道，尽管戈德弗鲁瓦教授（Gaudefroy）有那般言辞，但马德鲁斯的著作堪称“比原文更真实”。马尔德鲁斯自己的还击则是建立在纪德精彩绝伦的言论之上的。学院派评论家是在课堂上学习阿拉伯语的，而不是在中东的生活时学到的。为了如实地完成这项翻译，为了确切地反映出阿拉伯语的精神及其精髓⋯⋯你必须在阿拉伯国家土生土长；⋯⋯为得体地译出这个故事的精神和文字，你必须曾清楚地听过当地的口音，通过讲故事的人富有民族特色的神色和抑扬顿挫的语调充分把握故事的实质。因此，马尔德鲁斯的翻译基本上成了口述故事的“直译”译本。他的法语译文代表了阿拉伯口语文化。如果学院派评论家坚持要求马尔德鲁斯翻译的《一千零一夜》有文本来源考证才算真实，那么没有问题，马尔德鲁斯说：“为了取悦戈德弗鲁瓦先生，有一天我就想将我的法语译文再译成阿拉伯语，这样就能彻底解决《一千零一夜》没有阿拉伯语文本来源的问题。此番文学争论的焦点是一种在很大程度上受到了文化制约的思想观念，即：直译由什么构成。马尔德鲁斯想证明他的著作如实地反映了阿拉伯文化的真实形态，无论对错，他都将其视为享有的专属本土特权。他想出一个停止争论的办法——为考证学者编造出一份文本来源作为他们要求的物证——这个想法也许完全不切实际，但在马尔德鲁斯看来确是合乎常理的。另一方面，据西方其他评论者的观点，“直译”与真实性、忠实度和简单易懂并没有关45 联。与其真正相关的只有单词的书面形式，甚至仅限于在字母脚本里寻找替换单词。过去的几百年，当人们对于保留原文思想的翻译方法仍然比较陌生的时候，直译没有得到广泛的重视，而仅限于一定范围的需求（包括法律、宗教、哲学、数学、天文学偶尔还有精英沙龙），但却提高了书面文本的书写价值。但是在读写能力近乎普及的时代，也就是说，在我们过去的两三代，字母脚本完全服务于日常工作（给食品包装贴上标签；做内衣广告；写微博；画恐怖漫画；写低俗小说），然而事实上，一些值得用文字记录的事情却没有带来丝毫的增值。“文字”不再是“单词戏法”，它只是过去遗留下来的习俗。关于翻译和意义之争的辩词需要更新校正，并且直译与意译的持久之争现在应暂告一段落了。然而，在某个重要的领域中，单个词汇层次上的意义转换是实用且必备的方法：比如在学校里，更确切地说，是在外语课堂上。语言教学有很多不同的方法。奥斯曼人在他们占领的地盘集拢年轻人，将其带回伊斯坦布尔当作奴隶使唤，并将他们训练成“语言人才”。现代管理方式不再那么粗鲁，而是让人们全身心地投入到语言学习当中，接受对大脑的洗礼，同样也能明白如何能更好地学习语言。在整个西欧学习拉丁语的时期，浸入式教学法未被采用。因为每个说拉丁语的人缺乏以拉丁语为母语的语言环境，所以必须由教师在课堂上通过写作的方式进行学习。由于在教授希腊语时重复罗马人的做法，所以欧洲语言的教学传统严重倾向于将翻译当作传授外语写作技巧的方法，并且还作为一种评估学生进步的方式。各类学校及高校的现代欧洲语言教学始于十九世纪末期，并借鉴了拉丁语和希腊语以翻译为基础的传统教学方法。人们通常认为这是语言教学上的失败。然而，如果学习拉丁语（法语、或者德语）的目的在于能够用所学语言进行流利地阅读，或是写作，以便与其他拉丁语、法语或德语使用者（他们的母语也许完全不同）进行沟通，那么翻译和写作技巧完全适用于现在的教育目标。当无法拥有真实的语言环境或缺乏模拟语言环境的技术（电视、收音机、电影、录音和网页）时，外语教学不得不依赖于石板、黑板、练习本或者版画以便进行写作。仅仅凭借这些可获得的工具，无法清楚地解释“yfuiQ-fiSOrNiiCM”为何要被理解成“我有一个大房子”，除非你可以解释它能划分成“在我的大房子”的结构，然后将其以英语的形式逐条地介绍语法的基本特征——比如，俄罗斯人没有定冠词或不定冠词；形容词与它们相应的数词应在人称、性别和名词的格保持一致；俄语里没有动词不定式这种表达；所有格也许会借助介词而放在人称代词之前，并置于合适的语法格中。确实，我刚刚给出的语法解释看似没有意义，但你会发现它在书面表达中大有用处。46'