C)Translation 3 所在过去20年中,苏期巴斯内特和安德烈勒菲弗尔不 努力在翻译研究领域内进行沟通,架设通向 翻译研究领域之外的桥 990年 率先 翻译 转向文化”,从文化研究学者那里汲取营养 新著《文化建构》中,他们以有力的证据说明了文化研 究正在向翻译研究靠拢。本书的后面,勒菲弗尔将对《埃 种译本进 巴斯内特将对《地狱篇》 本进行讨论。从中可以看出,新的研究策略 翻译历史汲取营养,不仅使译者能更洞察翻译的实际过程 而且为文化研究批评家研究当权者进行文化操纵提供了新 视角。以 斯内特和 武装 译者的 人翁意溟目益增强,隐姓理名的做法甘渐减少
C) Translation 3: • 在过去20年中，苏珊.巴斯内特和安德烈.勒菲弗尔不 断著书立说，努力在翻译研究领域内进行沟通，架设通向 翻译研究领域之外的桥梁。1990年，他们率先提出，翻译 研究应“转向文化”，从文化研究学者那里汲取营养。在 其新著《文化建构》中，他们以有力的证据说明了文化研 究正在向翻译研究靠拢。本书的后面，勒菲弗尔将对《埃 涅依特》①的各种译本进行讨论，巴斯内特将对《地狱篇》 ②的各种译本进行讨论。从中可以看出，新的研究策略从 翻译历史汲取营养，不仅使译者能更洞察翻译的实际过程， 而且为文化研究批评家研究当权者进行文化操纵提供了新 的视角。以巴斯内特和勒菲弗尔的观点武装自己，译者的 主人翁意识日益增强，隐姓埋名的做法日渐减少
Translation 3(continued) 式文化差异和意文引入自家文化放之 发展趋势,使理论家更清晰地认识作为 中介的翻译过程,更好地认 ①古罗马诗人维吉尔用拉丁文写的一部史诗,分 册,叙述特洛伊陷落以后的情况。《埃涅 依特》是约定俗成的译名 ②但丁所作的《神曲》的第一部,传统上译为 x《地狱篇》
Translation 3 (continued): • 这一发展趋势，使理论家更清晰地认识作为文化 中介的翻译过程，更好地认识将不同的词语、形 式、文化差异和意义引入自家文化的过程。 • ① 古罗马诗人维吉尔用拉丁文写的一部史诗，分 为十二册，叙述特洛伊陷落以后的情况。《埃涅 依特》是约定俗成的译名。 • ② 但丁所作的《神曲》的第一部，传统上译为 《地狱篇》
Comments: Compared with the previous translation, the present translation has included two great changes,Frst,在过去 的20年中,苏现斯内特和安德烈,勤菲弟尔不断善书立 说,多力在删译研究领域内部进行均通,架设通向翻译研 究领成之外的桥(and本书的后面,勤菲弟尔将对《埃涅 依①的各种译本进行过论,巴斯内特将欢的地篇少 为各种译进行论。从中可以看出,新的研究策路从 粉译历史汲取营养,不仅使译者能更洞察翻译的实际过程 且为文化研究批评家研究当权者进行文化操纵提供了新 Bhfi fare substituted for the corresponding parts in the previous translation. Secondly, two notes are added for the convenience of the reader
Comments: • Compared with the previous translation, the present translation has included two great changes. First, 在过去 的20年中，苏珊.巴斯内特和安德烈.勒菲弗尔不断著书立 说，努力在翻译研究领域内部进行沟通，架设通向翻译研 究领域之外的桥梁and本书的后面，勒菲弗尔将对《埃涅 依特》①的各种译本进行讨论，巴斯内特将对《地狱篇》 ②的各种译本进行讨论。从中可以看出，新的研究策略从 翻译历史汲取营养，不仅使译者能更洞察翻译的实际过程， 而且为文化研究批评家研究当权者进行文化操纵提供了新 的视角are substituted for the corresponding parts in the previous translation. Secondly, two notes are added for the convenience of the reader
Original 82 We also need to learn more about the texts that constitute the cultural capital of other civilizations, and We need to learn about them in ways that tryto o overcome, or bypass the kiss of death bestowed by acculturation through analogy, Haikus are not epigrams Chinese novels have their own rules both the textual and conceptual grids of other civilizations should not be reduced to those of the West We need to find out how to translate the cultura capital of other civilizations in a way that preserves at least part of their own nature, without producing translations that are so low on the entertainment factor that they appeal only to those who read for professional reasons
Original 82: • We also need to learn more about the texts that constitute the cultural capital of other civilizations, and we need to learn about them in ways that try to overcome, or bypass the kiss of death bestowed by acculturation through analogy. Haikus are not epigrams, Chinese novels have their own rules, both the textual and conceptual grids of other civilizations should not be reduced to those of the West. • We need to find out how to translate the cultural capital of other civilizations in a way that preserves at least part of their own nature, without producing translations that are so low on the entertainment factor that they appeal only to those who read for professional reasons
original 82(continued) o Perhaps this is another area in which different forms of rewriting need to cooperate we could imagine the translated text translated by a long introduction which sets out to show how the original text works on its own terms, within its own grid, rather than to tell readers only what it is 'like or even ' most like' in their own cultures. This kind of attempt is mot likely to bring us up against the limits of translation, a necessary confrontation for without such a challenge, how else are we ever to overcome such limits and move on? (Bassnett and Lefevere 2000: 11)
Original 82 (continued): • Perhaps this is another area in which different forms of rewriting need to cooperate: we could imagine the translated text, translated by a long introduction which sets out to show how the original text works on its own terms, within its own grid, rather than to tell readers only what it is ‘like’ or even ‘most like’ in their own cultures. This kind of attempt is mot likely to bring us up against the limits of translation, a necessary confrontation, for without such a challenge, how else are we ever to overcome such limits and move on? • (Bassnett and Lefevere 2000: 11)