论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】]The relevance between translation and power is a newly rising research focus which sparks great interest in the translation community. Therefore, this paper strives to cut through the penetration point of research of relations between interpretation and power from the perspective of Andre Lefevere’s manipulation theory, and to further bring the dynamic counteractions between various interpretative entities into light. The theme of this paper is the analysis of power relations engaged in interpretation, which functions as the very axis governing the paper as the hub of a wheel. The dominant point of view of the manipulation school is that in order to achieve a specific target, all translations may impose manipulative power over the original works. However, in the writer’s eyes, in interpretation practices, the interpretation entities are manipulators and in the meanwhile manipulatees to some degree, who are in constant counteractions with one another.
【Key words】interpretation; power relations; manipulation theory; interpretative entities
【摘要】翻译与权力的关联是西方译论界新兴的一个研究热点。因此，本文试图从勒菲弗尔的操控理论角度切入，把握口译与权力的关联，揭示在口译过程中各种口译主体之间能动的反作用关系。本文以权力关系概念作为轴心贯穿全文。“操控学派”认为，从译语文学角度，为了实现一定的目的，所有的翻译都对原作进行一定程度的操控。笔者认为，在口译实践中，口译主体从某种程度上而言既是操控者，又是受控者，彼此之间进行能动的反作用。
【关键词】口译权力关系操控理论口译主体
【中图分类号】H31 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】2095-3089（2014）04-0037-02
Manipulation is not exclusively limited to the source texts or to the patronage in terms of translation. On the one level, although the patrons impose manipulation on the translators, who may in turn manipulate the target society via their manipulation over the source texts; on the other level, translation is manipulated by the authors and the source texts as well as the target culture readers through whose cognitive feedbacks. Therefore, in a circular way, translators may on the contrary exert manipulation on the patrons or the commissioners. Hence, it’s self?鄄evident that translation is manipulated and at the same time manipulative.
When it comes to interpretation, also, manipulation is not solely limited within the range of the organizers or the sponsors of a conference with interpretation practices involved. On the one hand, the organizers and the sponsors of a meeting, for instance, impose manipulative power on the interpreters; on the other hand, the interpreters may sequentially manipulate the audience as a whole through their manipulation over the output of the interpretation target texts. Looking through the overall process and putting them into a nutshell, interpretation is manipulated by the power relations among interpretative entities covering the sponsor, the organizer, the speech deliver, the interpreter as well as the audience from a micro scope. From time to time, in turn, interpreters also exert manipulation over the sponsors and the organizers through tapping into the response and the cognitive feedback of the audience. Therefore, it is safe to put that interpretation, a dynamic counteraction among interpretative entities (sponsors, organizers, speakers, interpreters, audiences) is manipulated by manipulative agents from a relatively macro perspective.
From the perspective of Andre Lefevere, who is one of the major leading theorists of the manipulation school, there are mainly two specified forms of cultural constraints as manipulative instrument on translations: one is ideology, and the other is poetics. In most cases, the sponsors or the organizers (sometimes the two are of one party) infuse their ideology into the speakers’ in an overwhelmingly indiscriminate manner; likewise, the speakers exert manipulative influences on the interpreters’ comprehension of the input of the source text. Thus, in a circuitous way, the sponsors and the organizers impose their manipulative power over the interpreters. However, the ideological manipulation is never a simplistic one?鄄way procedure or one?鄄faceted case, rather, it is multi?鄄layered and circular. On the contrary, by means of observing and absorbing the response and the cognitive feedback of the audience, the interpreters may occasionally exert their ideological manipulation on the sponsors as well as on the organizers either intentionally or unintentionally. In addition, ideology also executes manipulative power over other aspects of interpretation, to name just a few: generation and edition of the original script, audiences on the spot comprised of various social groups from all walks of life. What is worthy our attention is the choice of language, which constitutes one of the principal tactics of ideological manipulation applied to ensure the ideological elements of the organizers or the sponsors are well conveyed and fully understood, and in the meanwhile the notions conforming to or strengthening the dominant ideology of organizers or sponsors is not challenged or manipulated. On some occasions, while interpreting some so?鄄called sensitive materials, the most common interpretative strategy employed by most interpreters is generalizing or simplifying their target text output for the purpose of “safety”. Hence, extreme generalization or excessive simplification may also be prone to cause ideological interpretation.
Similar to translation, interpretation is also subject to ideological domination and in turn itself may serve an ideological tool, which conveys, changes, or even supplements certain ideologies to either enhance or challenge the dominant target culture ideology. No matter what our conclusion is, positive or negative, the ideological manipulation is unavoidable. Our depiction of ideological manipulations cannot be exhaustive; neither do they fit for manipulation cases on each and every interpretation occasion. Therefore, interpreters should spare no efforts to bypass ideological conflicts of every conceivable kind. Only if meeting with these prerequisites mentioned above could interpreters guarantee a relatively objective rendition.
Interpretation is greatly influenced by the power of a language: the imbalance and asymmetry in linguistic code power affects the development of the interpretation trade, the authenticity of parallel texts of interpretation, and the interpreter’s cultural and political orientations. There is also a parallel between the language choice and the language status of the official work language adopted by major influential authoritative international organizations. Language domination endows its speakers with more linguistic capital so that they may attain more access to the symbolic power and thus to stand the chance to execute the symbolic domination over others. In some situations, the writer and the editor of the meeting script, the sponsors and the organizers of a certain summit may pertain to one party, so it is quite natural for the sponsors or the organizers to impose manipulative power over the interpreters’ language selection via the medium of the speech maker.
Similarly, interpretation is often initiated in the target culture; however, the power of the source culture can never be overlooked. Furthermore, cultural constraints on interpretation differ from one context to another. Norms restrain interpretation, but interpreters can either follow suits or use certain techniques and strategies during the process of interpretation to jump over those limitations, or communicate what the original texts may not be able to achieve at specific historical and cultural contexts with conference organizers in advance.
Norm?鄄breaching, which is sometimes deemed a rise of inspiration and a source of cultural innovation, may be tolerated or even be recommended in translation practices. Excessive emphasis on social and cultural constraints may keep translators’ independent innovation and subjective initiatives in check. Nevertheless, a total negligence of the positive aspects of the social and cultural norms might cause mistranslations. Similar to translation practices, interpretation practices are frequently initiated in the target culture, nevertheless, the power of the source culture cannot be ignored. Likewise, cultural constraints on interpretations differ from one context to another. Proposing a definition to a source culture or a target culture can be proved a rather difficult task occasionally, in addition, culture is not the only factor that affects interpretation practices. Each factor has its distinct role to play and unique function to serve in the intricate process of interpretation, so to some extent, the effect of culture is just like a sword of Damocles. Norms may bottleneck the comprehensibility of the interpretation target text output, as interpreters, who usually enjoy comparatively sufficient freedom available in real?鄄time interpretation cases to make up their own mind: whether to conform to or to go against the constraints and how to fully transmit what the speech deliver intended to communicate may be at the disposal of the interpreters to certain extent within specified political and cultural context. A slight breach of norms, in some cases, is likely to be regarded as a source of cultural creativity, a sparkling of inspiration giving rise to the coinage of neologism, thus may be forgiven, tolerated or even recommended. In this sense, it is safe for us to put that breaching of norms and mobilization of an interpreter’s subjective initiatives co?鄄exists in interpretation practices.
In brief, either interpretation or translation is the product of social development that occurs due to specified historical, cultural and political demands of communication, which never occurs in a void; rather, it always takes place in a specific social cultural context, a context of complex structures including power structures in a certain period of time in the human history. There are a variety of restrictions on translators as well as on interpreters. On most occasions, translators and interpreters are both conditioned by those power structures and take advantage of them to meet their own standards in either an individual or collective way. Faced with a variety of possible alternatives, translators and interpreters stand striding a fence on how to move on within the power structures in specified context, which comprise of not only economic and political factors but also cultural elements.
Reference:
[1]Andre Lefevere. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame［M］. London and New York: Routledge, 1992
[2]Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture［C］. London and New York: Pinter, 1990
[3]Bassnett, Susan. Text Types and Power Relations［A］. in Anna Trosborg (ed.) Text Typology and Translation［C］. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997
[4]Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation［C］. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1998/2001
[5]Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power［M］. Oxford, UK: Polity Press, 1991
【Key words】interpretation; power relations; manipulation theory; interpretative entities
【摘要】翻译与权力的关联是西方译论界新兴的一个研究热点。因此，本文试图从勒菲弗尔的操控理论角度切入，把握口译与权力的关联，揭示在口译过程中各种口译主体之间能动的反作用关系。本文以权力关系概念作为轴心贯穿全文。“操控学派”认为，从译语文学角度，为了实现一定的目的，所有的翻译都对原作进行一定程度的操控。笔者认为，在口译实践中，口译主体从某种程度上而言既是操控者，又是受控者，彼此之间进行能动的反作用。
【关键词】口译权力关系操控理论口译主体
【中图分类号】H31 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】2095-3089（2014）04-0037-02
Manipulation is not exclusively limited to the source texts or to the patronage in terms of translation. On the one level, although the patrons impose manipulation on the translators, who may in turn manipulate the target society via their manipulation over the source texts; on the other level, translation is manipulated by the authors and the source texts as well as the target culture readers through whose cognitive feedbacks. Therefore, in a circular way, translators may on the contrary exert manipulation on the patrons or the commissioners. Hence, it’s self?鄄evident that translation is manipulated and at the same time manipulative.
When it comes to interpretation, also, manipulation is not solely limited within the range of the organizers or the sponsors of a conference with interpretation practices involved. On the one hand, the organizers and the sponsors of a meeting, for instance, impose manipulative power on the interpreters; on the other hand, the interpreters may sequentially manipulate the audience as a whole through their manipulation over the output of the interpretation target texts. Looking through the overall process and putting them into a nutshell, interpretation is manipulated by the power relations among interpretative entities covering the sponsor, the organizer, the speech deliver, the interpreter as well as the audience from a micro scope. From time to time, in turn, interpreters also exert manipulation over the sponsors and the organizers through tapping into the response and the cognitive feedback of the audience. Therefore, it is safe to put that interpretation, a dynamic counteraction among interpretative entities (sponsors, organizers, speakers, interpreters, audiences) is manipulated by manipulative agents from a relatively macro perspective.
From the perspective of Andre Lefevere, who is one of the major leading theorists of the manipulation school, there are mainly two specified forms of cultural constraints as manipulative instrument on translations: one is ideology, and the other is poetics. In most cases, the sponsors or the organizers (sometimes the two are of one party) infuse their ideology into the speakers’ in an overwhelmingly indiscriminate manner; likewise, the speakers exert manipulative influences on the interpreters’ comprehension of the input of the source text. Thus, in a circuitous way, the sponsors and the organizers impose their manipulative power over the interpreters. However, the ideological manipulation is never a simplistic one?鄄way procedure or one?鄄faceted case, rather, it is multi?鄄layered and circular. On the contrary, by means of observing and absorbing the response and the cognitive feedback of the audience, the interpreters may occasionally exert their ideological manipulation on the sponsors as well as on the organizers either intentionally or unintentionally. In addition, ideology also executes manipulative power over other aspects of interpretation, to name just a few: generation and edition of the original script, audiences on the spot comprised of various social groups from all walks of life. What is worthy our attention is the choice of language, which constitutes one of the principal tactics of ideological manipulation applied to ensure the ideological elements of the organizers or the sponsors are well conveyed and fully understood, and in the meanwhile the notions conforming to or strengthening the dominant ideology of organizers or sponsors is not challenged or manipulated. On some occasions, while interpreting some so?鄄called sensitive materials, the most common interpretative strategy employed by most interpreters is generalizing or simplifying their target text output for the purpose of “safety”. Hence, extreme generalization or excessive simplification may also be prone to cause ideological interpretation.
Similar to translation, interpretation is also subject to ideological domination and in turn itself may serve an ideological tool, which conveys, changes, or even supplements certain ideologies to either enhance or challenge the dominant target culture ideology. No matter what our conclusion is, positive or negative, the ideological manipulation is unavoidable. Our depiction of ideological manipulations cannot be exhaustive; neither do they fit for manipulation cases on each and every interpretation occasion. Therefore, interpreters should spare no efforts to bypass ideological conflicts of every conceivable kind. Only if meeting with these prerequisites mentioned above could interpreters guarantee a relatively objective rendition.
Interpretation is greatly influenced by the power of a language: the imbalance and asymmetry in linguistic code power affects the development of the interpretation trade, the authenticity of parallel texts of interpretation, and the interpreter’s cultural and political orientations. There is also a parallel between the language choice and the language status of the official work language adopted by major influential authoritative international organizations. Language domination endows its speakers with more linguistic capital so that they may attain more access to the symbolic power and thus to stand the chance to execute the symbolic domination over others. In some situations, the writer and the editor of the meeting script, the sponsors and the organizers of a certain summit may pertain to one party, so it is quite natural for the sponsors or the organizers to impose manipulative power over the interpreters’ language selection via the medium of the speech maker.
Similarly, interpretation is often initiated in the target culture; however, the power of the source culture can never be overlooked. Furthermore, cultural constraints on interpretation differ from one context to another. Norms restrain interpretation, but interpreters can either follow suits or use certain techniques and strategies during the process of interpretation to jump over those limitations, or communicate what the original texts may not be able to achieve at specific historical and cultural contexts with conference organizers in advance.
Norm?鄄breaching, which is sometimes deemed a rise of inspiration and a source of cultural innovation, may be tolerated or even be recommended in translation practices. Excessive emphasis on social and cultural constraints may keep translators’ independent innovation and subjective initiatives in check. Nevertheless, a total negligence of the positive aspects of the social and cultural norms might cause mistranslations. Similar to translation practices, interpretation practices are frequently initiated in the target culture, nevertheless, the power of the source culture cannot be ignored. Likewise, cultural constraints on interpretations differ from one context to another. Proposing a definition to a source culture or a target culture can be proved a rather difficult task occasionally, in addition, culture is not the only factor that affects interpretation practices. Each factor has its distinct role to play and unique function to serve in the intricate process of interpretation, so to some extent, the effect of culture is just like a sword of Damocles. Norms may bottleneck the comprehensibility of the interpretation target text output, as interpreters, who usually enjoy comparatively sufficient freedom available in real?鄄time interpretation cases to make up their own mind: whether to conform to or to go against the constraints and how to fully transmit what the speech deliver intended to communicate may be at the disposal of the interpreters to certain extent within specified political and cultural context. A slight breach of norms, in some cases, is likely to be regarded as a source of cultural creativity, a sparkling of inspiration giving rise to the coinage of neologism, thus may be forgiven, tolerated or even recommended. In this sense, it is safe for us to put that breaching of norms and mobilization of an interpreter’s subjective initiatives co?鄄exists in interpretation practices.
In brief, either interpretation or translation is the product of social development that occurs due to specified historical, cultural and political demands of communication, which never occurs in a void; rather, it always takes place in a specific social cultural context, a context of complex structures including power structures in a certain period of time in the human history. There are a variety of restrictions on translators as well as on interpreters. On most occasions, translators and interpreters are both conditioned by those power structures and take advantage of them to meet their own standards in either an individual or collective way. Faced with a variety of possible alternatives, translators and interpreters stand striding a fence on how to move on within the power structures in specified context, which comprise of not only economic and political factors but also cultural elements.
Reference:
[1]Andre Lefevere. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame［M］. London and New York: Routledge, 1992
[2]Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture［C］. London and New York: Pinter, 1990
[3]Bassnett, Susan. Text Types and Power Relations［A］. in Anna Trosborg (ed.) Text Typology and Translation［C］. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997
[4]Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation［C］. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1998/2001
[5]Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power［M］. Oxford, UK: Polity Press, 1991