全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

A Dialectical Study on Translatability and Untranslatability

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1111936, PP. 1-16

Subject Areas: Linguistics

Keywords: Translatability, Untranslatability, Theoretical Basis, Dialectical Relationship

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract

In the process of code-switching, information asymmetry between the translated text and the original text is an objective reality. This is caused by the uncertainty of the meaning of the words in the translated material on which the translation is based, the differences in the paradigms and cultures of the two languages, and the subjective initiative of the translator. Untranslatability presupposes linguistic uniqueness and implies the denial of correspondence between different languages in terms of expressions, ways of thinking, mental qualities, and other factors. The claim of translatability presupposes the affirmation of these correspondences. The apparent opposition between untranslatability and translatability obscures the fact that the two are concerned with different aspects of language and culture, and that the relationship between them is dialectically complementary. This paper summarizes the research and debates on translatability and untranslatability both at home and abroad, sorts out the theoretical basis of translatability and untranslatability, and then elaborates the main factors affecting translatability and untranslatability. On this basis, the dialectical complementary relationship between translatability and untranslatability is analyzed with examples, and finally, the implications of this study for translation teaching are summarized.

Cite this paper

Zhang, R. (2024). A Dialectical Study on Translatability and Untranslatability. Open Access Library Journal, 11, e1936. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1111936.

References

[1]  Benjamin, W. (2016) The Task of the Translator: An Introduction to the Translation of Baudelaire’s Tableaux Parisiens. In: Elliott, S.S. and Waggoner, M., Eds., Readings in the Theory of Religion, Routledge, 131-139.
[2]  Catford, J.C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation (Vol. 31). Oxford University Press.
[3]  Davis, K. (2014) Deconstruction and Translation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760452
[4]  De Pedro, R. (1999) The Translatability of Texts: A Historical Overview. Meta, 44, 546-559. https://doi.org/10.7202/003808ar
[5]  Koskinen, K. (1994) (Mis) Translating the Un-translatable: The Impact of Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism on Translation Theory. Meta, 39, 446-452. https://doi.org/10.7202/003344ar
[6]  Ping, K. (1999) Translatability vs. Untranslatability: A Sociosemiotic Perspective. Babel, 45, 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.45.4.02pin
[7]  蔡龙权. 在可能与不可能之间——关于可译性与不可译性的思考[J]. 上海师范大学学报: 哲学社会科学版, 2008, 37(5): 116-125.
[8]  付巧玉. 解构主义翻译观视域下文学作品不可译性探究[J]. 东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版), 2019(2): 55-60.
[9]  霍桂桓. 论翻译的技巧, 理想, 标准及其形成过程——兼析作为《论不可译性》之理论前提的康德先验哲学观[J]. 现代哲学, 2004(4): 103-111.
[10]  金敬红. 解构“不可译性” [J]. 东北大学学报(社会科学版), 2008, 10(6): 535.
[11]  谭载喜. 西方翻译简史[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2004.
[12]  唐述宗. 是不可译论还是不可知论[J]. 中国翻译, 2002, 23(1): 54-57.
[13]  王宾. “不可译性”面面观[J]. 现代哲学, 2004(1): 81-87.
[14]  王宾. 论不可译性——理论反思与个案分析[J]. 中国翻译, 2001, 22(3): 8-16.

Full-Text


Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133