摘要
王向远教授指出“译介学”在对埃斯卡皮“创造性的背叛”一词借用的过程中,因缺少明确的概念界定而在理论与实践中招致了各种误解,这引起了“译介学”的警觉。有文章认为王向远教授对埃氏和谢天振教授“创造性叛逆”的解读都不够确切,并由此对“译文学”提出商榷,对此有必要加以学理上的辨析。需要指出:王教授对“创造性背叛”原意的追溯并非“误读”,对“创造性叛逆”的批评也并非是为“译文学”开拓空间,“译文学”绝不是否定或颠覆译介学,而是富有创新的深化和发展。
Professor Wang Xiangyuan points out that in the process of diverting Robert Escarpit s concept of“Creative treason”,“Medio-translatology”caused various misunderstandings in theory and practice because of the lack of clear definition in concepts.This aroused the vigilance of“Medio-translatology”.Some articles believe that professor Wang Xiangyuan s interpretation of“Creative treason”originated by Escarpit and transplanted by Professor Xie Tianzhen is not accurate,and from this,put forward a discussion on“Translated Text Studies”,so it is necessary to differentiate analyze in theoretical basis.It must be said that professor Wang s tracing of the original intention of“Creative treason”is not“misreading”,the criticism on“Creative treason”is not to extend space for“Translated Text Studies”.The emergence of“Translated Text Studies”is not to deny or subvert“Medio-translatology”,but an innovative deepening and development in translation research.
作者
张焕香
ZHANG Huanxiang(College of Foreign Language,Northwest Normal University,730070,Lanzhou,China)
出处
《北方工业大学学报》
2021年第1期95-102,127,共9页
Journal of North China University of Technology
基金
国家社会科学基金一般项目“日本文学与延安”(19BWW028)。
关键词
“译文学”
“译介学”
“创造性叛逆”
学术空间
“Translated Text Studies”
“Medio-Translatology”
“Creative Treason”
academic space