Scribd
Upload
28 views

Chapter 5-Task

This document discusses the concept of nationality as it relates to translated works of literature. It argues that while a translated work conveys information from a foreign author, the nationality of the work should be based on the nationality of the translator, not the original author. For example, a Chinese translation of a novel originally written in French would be considered a work of Chinese literature, not French, since the translator is Chinese. The document acknowledges some may disagree with this view, as it seems to change the perceived nationality of the work, but clarifies that only the translated work's nationality is being designated in this way, not the original.

Uploaded by

wp2715925604
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views

Chapter 5-Task

This document discusses the concept of nationality as it relates to translated works of literature. It argues that while a translated work conveys information from a foreign author, the nationality of the work should be based on the nationality of the translator, not the original author. For example, a Chinese translation of a novel originally written in French would be considered a work of Chinese literature, not French, since the translator is Chinese. The document acknowledges some may disagree with this view, as it seems to change the perceived nationality of the work, but clarifies that only the translated work's nationality is being designated in this way, not the original.

Uploaded by

wp2715925604
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Task 1: translate the following text into Chinese

Text Type

Katharina Reiss’s work in the 1970s built on the concept of equivalence but viewed the text,
rather than the word or sentence, as the level at which communication is achieved and at which
equivalence must be sought (Reiss 1977/1989: 113–14). Her functional approach aimed
initially at systematizing the assessment of translations. It borrows from the (1934/1965)
categorization of the three functions of language by German psychologist and linguist Karl
Bühler (1879–1963):
(1) informative function;
(2) expressive function;
(3) appellative function.

Reiss links the three functions to their corresponding language ‘dimensions’ and to the text
types or communicative situations in which they are used. The main characteristics of each text
type are summarized by Reiss (1977/1989: 108-9) as follows.
(1) Informative text type. ‘Plain communication of facts’: information, knowledge,
opinions, etc. The language dimension used to transmit the information is logical or referential,
the content or ‘topic’ is the main focus of the communication.
(2) Expressive text type. ‘Creative composition’: the author uses the aesthetic dimension
of language. The author or ‘sender’ is foregrounded, as well as the form of the message.
(3) Operative text type. ‘Inducing behavioural responses’: the aim of the appellative
function is to appeal to or persuade the reader or ‘receiver’ of the text to act in a certain way,
for example to buy a product (if an advert), or to agree to an argument (if a political speech or
a barrister’s concluding statement). The form of language is dialogic and the focus is appellative.
(4) Audio-medial texts, such as films and visual and spoken advertisements which
supplement the other three functions with visual images, music, etc. This is Reiss’s fourth type,
which are now commonly called ‘multimodal texts’.

Text types are therefore categorized according to their main function. For each of these text
types, Reiss (1976: 20) also gives examples of what she calls ‘text varieties’ (Textsorte), now
more commonly known as genres, that are typically associated with them.

Following this paradigm, a reference work (e.g. an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia) would be
the genre that is the most obviously informative text type; a poem is a highly expressive, form-
focused type, and an advertisement is the clearest operative text type (attempting to persuade
someone to buy or do something). Between these poles are positioned a host of hybrid types.
Thus, a biography (e.g. of a major political figure such as Barack Obama) might be somewhere
between the informative and expressive types, since it provides information about the subject
while also partly performing the expressive function of a piece of literature. It may even have
an operative function in convincing the reader of the correctness (or error) of the subject’s
actions. Similarly, a personal webpage gives facts about the individual but also often presents
a flattering portrait. And a religious speech may give information about the religion while
fulfilling the operative function by attempting to persuade the audience to behave in a certain
way. It too may have an expressive function as a piece of rhetoric.
Task 2: translate the following text into English

文学作品的国别问题

……譬如我们在编写中国文学史的时候，为什么收入了鲁迅的《狂人日记》，而不
收入果戈理的《狂人日记》呢？其理由应该是最简单不过的：因为前一部作品的作者
是中国作家，后一部作品的作者不是中国作家，而其他原因，诸如作品使用的语言，
作品流传的地域，作品中人物形象的国籍，作品故事的地点，等等，均不足为据。由
此我们可以得出结论，我们判断一部作品的国籍的依据就是该作品作者的国籍。这里
特别要强调的是作者的国籍，而不是作者属何民族。举例说如纳博科夫，尽管他是个
俄国人，但他已经入了美国国籍，他的作品，如《洛丽塔》，就是只能算是美国文学作
品，而不能视作苏联文学的一份子。基于同样的理由，一些美籍（或英籍等）华裔作
家的作品，如林语堂的《京华烟云》
，也不能当作中国文学的一部分来看待……
现在我们来看翻译文学。翻译文学作品的作者是谁呢？是外国人还是中国人？在
日常生活中，我们看到一部翻译文学作品，例如《高老头》，我们往往会不假思索地脱
口而出，说《高老头》的作者是巴尔扎克。粗一听，这种说法似乎不错，但细细一推
敲，便觉大谬不然，因为我们这里指的是用中文出版的《高老头》，如果说他的作者是
巴尔扎克的话，岂不意味着巴尔扎克会用中文写作？这显然于理不通，因此中文本的
作者理应是译者傅雷（或其他有关译者），而不是法国作家巴尔扎克。而一旦明确了译
本的作者是谁，该作品的国别归属问题也就不言自明了。
然而，尽管是如此顺利成章的推理，仍然有不少人想不通，觉得难以接受。“什
么？”他们大惑不解地问道：“明明是人家法国作家的作品，怎么一下成了我们中国文
学的作品了呢？你译者和译作不过是起了点传递作用罢了，而传递的内容（信息）毕
竟还是人家的么。怎么就此把一部作品的国籍归属改变了呢？”
应该承认，类似这样的看法很普遍，很有代表性，尽管有失偏颇。它的问题首先
在于混淆了译作与原作的关系，巴尔扎克原作的国别归属很明确，我们并没有加以改
变，我们改变的，或确切地说，我们明确的是译作的国别归属。其次，这种看法没有
分清传递作用与传递者（译者、译作）之间的关系。众所周知，我们绝不能因某人或
某物起的传递作用而改变该人该物的归属。打一个不十分确切的比喻，这就好比我们
家里的电话机，我们不能因为它总是传递他人的信息，而把它说成是人家的。同样道
理，我们也不能因为翻译文学传递的是外国文学的信息而把翻译文学混同于外国文学。
由此可见，当译者的国别归属明确以后，译作的国别归属应该是不言而喻的。

You might also like