Translators' Role as ＂Intermediaires＂ in Comparative Literature

比較文學中譯者的仲介角色

10.29912/CTR.201403_7(1).0005

鄭永康(Carlos G. Tee)

提格亨 ； 雅各森 ； 譯者 ； 比較文學 ； 仲介角色 ； 波爾曼 ； Paul Van Tieghem ； Roman Jakobson ； translators ； comparative literature ； intermediaire ； Sandra Bermann

編譯論叢

7卷1期（2014 / 03 / 01）

163 - 184

英文

本論文以譯者為仲介角色為出發點進行分析與比較提格亨（Paul Van Tieghem）的翻譯仲介模型與羅曼‧雅各森（Roman Jakobson）的語言溝通模型，並以兩者對譯者傳達訊息的各種相關因素一一比較來進一步闡述翻譯過程中譯者以仲介的身分如何傳遞語言訊息。提格亨模型簡略的勾勒出譯者的仲介角色，在早期的法國比較文學學派中起了舉足輕重的先導作用。相對的，雅各森的語言溝通模型更能以符號學和語言學觀點充分解釋當代翻譯學的熱門議題。然而，近代比較文學研究之學者如波爾曼（Sandra Bermann）提出翻譯的另一種仲介角色。波爾曼的「合作區概念」（And Zone）賦予譯者更為革命性的重要任務，使譯者在比較文學中不僅提供語言輔助及傳遞功能之使命，進而聯繫兩學門相互影響論之研究範疇的探討。

Paul Van Tieghem's mesologic views on translation as ＂intermediaire＂ were, in earlier times of comparative literary studies, influential in defining the job description of literary translators. Van Tieghem's ideas helped shape the way translation was viewed in the French School, and later, influenced American comparative literature in the latter's early period of development. This paper deals with the concept of the role of the translator as intermediary, and focuses on a comparison between Van Tieghem's mesologic model and the Jakobsonian communication paradigm for the translator's role in the transfer of linguistic message. In the comparative literature setting, Jakobson's model, which affords a linguistic and semiotic perspective of what makes verbal communication effective, applies as well to the transfer of meaning in the translation process on a far more comprehensive scope than Van Tieghem's model. In recent years, however, the ＂intermediaire＂ role of translation has gained further significance with bold calls for acceptance of its ＂intre pares＂ relationship with comparative literature as proposed by Sandra Bermann and other comparatists, i.e., instead of playing the role of ＂intermediaries＂, translators would become partners in the comparative endeavor.

1. Van Tieghem, P. (1931). La littérature compare [Comparative Literature]. Paris: Librarie Armand Colin.
2. Bassnett, S.(1993).Comparative literature: A critical introduction.Oxford:Blackwell.
3. Bermann, S.(2009).Working in the And Zone: Comparative literature and translation.Comparative Literature,61(4),432-446.
4. Chevrel, Y.,Dahab, F. E.(Trans.)(1989).Comparative literature today: Methods and perspectives.Kirksville:Thomas Jefferson University Press.
5. Etiemble, R.,Weisinger, H.(Trans.),Joyaux, G.(Trans.)(1966).The crisis in comparative literature.East Lansing:Michigan State University Press.
6. Gadamer, H. G.,Weinsheimer, J.(Trans.),Marshall, D.(Trans.)(1992).Truth and method.New York:Crossroad.
7. Hermans, T.(1999).Translation in systems: Descriptive and system-oriented approaches explained.Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
8. Hermans, T.(1985).The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation.London:Croom Helm.
9. Jakobson, R.(1960).Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics.Style in language,Cambridge:
10. Niranjana, T.(1982).Siting translation: History, post-structuralism and the colonial context.Berkeley:University of California Press.
11. Palmer, R. E.(Ed.)(2007).The Gadamer reader: A bouquet of the later writing.Evanston:Northwestern University Press.
12. Ricoeur, P.(2000).On translation.London:Routledge.
13. Sapir, E.(1956).Culture, language and personality.Los Angeles:University of California Press.
14. Schaffner, C.(Ed.)(1999).Translation and norms.Clevedon:Multilingual.
15. Schmidt, S. J.,de Beaugrande, R.(Trans.)(1982).Foundation for the empirical study of literature: The components of a basic theory.Hamburg:Buske.
16. Spivak, G. C.(2000).Translation as culture.Parallax,6(1),13-24.
17. Stallknecht, N. P.(Ed.),Frenz, H.(Ed.)(1971).Comparative literature: Method and perspective.Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.
18. Steiner, G.(1992).After Babel.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
19. Veeser, H. A.(Ed.)(1999).The Stanley Fish reader.Malden:Blackwell.
20. Venuti, L.(Ed.)(2000).The translator studies reader.London:Routledge.
21. Weisstein, U.(1973).Comparative literature and literary theory: Survey and introduction.Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
22. Wellek, R.,Warren, A.(1956).Theory of literature.New York:Harvest Books.