创造性叛逆:挪用还是生发?——与王向远教授商榷

Creative Treason: Appropriation or Development——A Discussion with Professor Wang Xiangyuan

王向远教授的文章《“创造性叛逆”的原意、语境与适用性》认为译介学对埃斯卡皮“创造性的背叛”一词存在着误读和误用,但是王文对埃氏“创造性的背叛”和译介学“创造性叛逆”存在着双重误解:淡化埃氏的“背叛”色彩,但背叛实为埃氏本意;认为“创造性的背叛”只存在于广义的翻译中,但其实埃氏狭义与广义均有论到;认为译介学中的创造性叛逆主体是译者,却无视《译介学》中明确提出的多重主体;认为创造性叛逆的内容不是增殖,而是变异,却忽略译介学对于译作“第二次生命”的阐述。“创造性叛逆”并非对于原有概念的挪用,而是基于学理对原有概念所蕴含的丰富内涵的挖掘和阐发,是原有概念的意义生发。译介学也并非如王教授所言,不能进入文本内部研究,而是文本内外研究相结合、入乎其内而又出乎其外的研究。

Professor Wang Xiangyuan’s article“The Original Intention,Context and Applicability of‘Creative Treason’”argues that Robert Escarpit’s word“creative betrayal”is misunderstood and misused in medio-translatology.However,Wang has a double misunderstanding about Escarpit’s“creative betrayal”and“creative treason”in medio-translatology.He weakens the strong color of“betrayal,”which was part of Escarpit’s original intention.He argues that“creative betrayal”only exists in a broad-sense of translation,but in fact it was discussed both in the broad-sense and narrow-sense by Escarpit.Moreover,he believed that the subject of creative treason in medio-translatology is the translator,but ignored the multiple subjects explicitly mentioned in Medio-Translatology.Furthermore,he argued the content of creative treason was not added value but variation;however,he ignored the interpretation in medio-translatology of the“second life”of a translation.Creative treason is not the appropriation of the original concept,but the theoretical exploration and illustration of the original concept based on its full range of connotation,which is a development of its meaning.Medio-translatology is not as Professor Wang said,unable to research within the text,but rather able to research both within and outside of the text.