[跨学科导读] K. Malmkjoer: Theories of linguistics and of T & I

K. Malmkjoer 翻译跨学科研究 2022-04-24

收录于合集

【编者按】语言学与翻译学有着密切的联系，翻译学理论的发展离不开语言学的孕育和滋养，巴黎高等翻译学院的释意理论亦是如此。本期的“翻译跨学科研究导读”，我们推荐Routledge Handbooks系列中的《The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Lingusitics》，这本手册系统论述了翻译学与语言学的关系。我们节选这本论著中Kirsten Malmkjoer（2018：15-30）撰写的“Theories of Lingusitics and of Transaltion and Interpreting”一文分享给大家，这篇文章可以带领大家系统审视语言学理论与翻译学理论的交叉、融合，尤其是随后的References汇总了进行翻译与语言学跨学科研究的主要参考书目，值得有志于这个领域研究的老师、同学关注、收藏。

论述摘要

Linguistics is the academic discipline that focuses on languages, and since translation can be seen, in Catford’s (1965, 1) words as “an operation performed on languages”, many scholars interested in translation and interpreting have looked to linguistics for theoretical input (Nida 1964; Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1995; Neubert 1973, 1985; Halverson 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014). Equally, though, linguists have sought enlightenment about language and languages through the study of languages in contact with each other in situations involving translation or interpreting (Sapir 1921; Jakobson 1959). Some scholars, especially those with a geographical background in Europe (e.g. Jakobson) and/or a disciplinary leaning towards field linguistics and/or anthropology (e.g. Sapir) fall equally comfortably into both the linguistic and the Translation Studies discipline.

Catford’s definition has been criticised by Snell-Hornby (1995 [1988], 3) for expressing too narrow a view of what translation is and for deriving translation rules from “isolated and even absurdly simplistic sentences” (1995 [1988], 20). For their part, interpreting studies scholars like Seleskovitch (1975, 1978) and Seleskovitch and Lederer (1984, 1989) have warned that linguistics is too focused on words and expressions to be able to account for interpreting. Instead, they prefer the so-called theory of sense developed by Seleskovitch, according to which an interpreter abstracts sense from words in the source language in order to express a similar sense in the target language. Of course, a linguist might argue that the role of language in this process remains significant, and given the heightened concentration in the late 20th and early 21st centuries on the cognitive processes involved in translating and interpreting (see Chapter 18 in this volume), such criticisms seem less pertinent than they were when originally posed.

It is possible that at least some negative views of linguistics as a foundation for the development of translation and interpreting studies were based on a desire to forge independent disciplines and a concern that the complex processes of translating and interpreting would be overlooked in the effort to relate languages to each other, often with little regard for empirical data and even less attention paid to context. To a limited extent, these fears have been realised in the work by Gutt (1991), for example. Gutt draws heavily on Sperber and Wilson’s (1986) relevance theoretic account of linguistic interaction (see Chapter 6 in this volume), so he pays considerable attention to context; nevertheless, he also claims that, given relevance theory, there is no need for a separate theory of translation Gutt (1990, 135, italics original):

the phenomenon commonly referred to as “translation” can be accounted for naturally within the relevance theory of communication developed by Sperber and Wilson: there is no need for a distinct general theory of translation.

Of course, there are also translation scholars who have viewed linguistics positively. In addition to Catford, who bases his theory on the linguistic theory of Halliday (1961), these include Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), who believe with Trager and Smith (1951, 81) that linguistics is “the most exact of human sciences” (Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1995, 7) and who draw heavily on Saussure’s theory of signs (see in particular Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1995, 12–15); Nida (1964, 9), who refers to Chomsky (1957; 1962 [published as 1964]); and Halverson (2007, 2010, 2013, 2014), who draws on the cognitive linguistic theory developed by Langacker (1983, 1987, 1991a, 1991b, 1999, 2008).

Kirsten Malmkjoer（2018）:15-16