Translatability and Poetic Translation
INTRODUCTION
Translation used to be considered an inter-language transfer of meaning, which is the point of departure for research and study. Many earlier definitions demonstrate this, using source language and target language as their technical terms. Moreover, translation theories strictly confined themselves within the sphere of linguistics. For many years the popular trend in the translation circles had been perfect faithfulness to the original both in content and in form and it had been regarded as the iron criterion as if from the holy Bible for translators to observe. The godly status and the impossible idealistic belief were not altered until new thoughts arose with the respect of consideration of target readers, the unavoidable translator subjectivity and the purpose and function of translations. This thesis, starting to look from new angles such as the accommodation to target cultural conventions, the translator 's consciousness of linguistic and cultural adaptations to make it easy for readers to understand translated works without too much pain and effort, and translation as a purposeful endeavor. Translation is then understood as a much more complicated activity with a much broader scope.
Translation of poetry was, and still is by some, believed as impossibility for any unfaithful elements would have been taken as failure, be it content or form. The arguments include linguistic elements and cultural elements. Most importantly the myth of untranslatability looks upon poetry as beauty itself which is untouchable for once it is touched it is destroyed. But as translation of poetry has never been stagnant though sometimes vigorous and sometimes not, there is strong evidence in both translation history and present day practice that poetic translation, a literary form as distinguished from fiction, drama, and prose, is translatable. Poetry itself serves a purpose, be it an illusive matter, and aesthetics can be reproduced in another language and
Translation used to be considered an inter-language transfer of meaning, which is the point of departure for research and study. Many earlier definitions demonstrate this, using source language and target language as their technical terms. Moreover, translation theories strictly confined themselves within the sphere of linguistics. For many years the popular trend in the translation circles had been perfect faithfulness to the original both in content and in form and it had been regarded as the iron criterion as if from the holy Bible for translators to observe. The godly status and the impossible idealistic belief were not altered until new thoughts arose with the respect of consideration of target readers, the unavoidable translator subjectivity and the purpose and function of translations. This thesis, starting to look from new angles such as the accommodation to target cultural conventions, the translator 's consciousness of linguistic and cultural adaptations to make it easy for readers to understand translated works without too much pain and effort, and translation as a purposeful endeavor. Translation is then understood as a much more complicated activity with a much broader scope.
Translation of poetry was, and still is by some, believed as impossibility for any unfaithful elements would have been taken as failure, be it content or form. The arguments include linguistic elements and cultural elements. Most importantly the myth of untranslatability looks upon poetry as beauty itself which is untouchable for once it is touched it is destroyed. But as translation of poetry has never been stagnant though sometimes vigorous and sometimes not, there is strong evidence in both translation history and present day practice that poetic translation, a literary form as distinguished from fiction, drama, and prose, is translatable. Poetry itself serves a purpose, be it an illusive matter, and aesthetics can be reproduced in another language and
Bibliography: 1. Adams, Hazard. (1967). The Interests of Criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace and World Inc. 2. Baker, Mona. (1992). In other words: A Coursebook on Translation. Routledge Publishing House. UK. 3. Berry, M. (1977). Introduction to Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford. 4. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5. Chao, Yuen Ren, (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California press. USA. 6. Giles, D. (1995) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. 7. Garravittta, Petter. (1997) Italian Theory and Criticism-Twentieth Century. Johns Hopkin’s University Press. 8 10. Halliday, M. A. K., & R. Hasan.(1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 11. Hatim &Mason: (1997). The translator as Communicator. 12 13. Ilyas, A. (1989). Theories of Translation: Theoretical Issues and Practical Implications. Mosul: University of Mosul. 14. McCarthy, M. (1993). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15 16. Nunan,D. (1993). Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Group. 17. Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 18. Nida, E.A. (1984). On Translation, Translation Publishing Corp. Beijing,China. 19. Nord, Christiane, (2001). Translation As a Purposeful Activity-functionalist approaches 20. Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre: (2001). Constructing Cultures-Essays on Literary Translation. 上海外语教育出版社. 21. Wolfram Wilss: (2001). The Science of Translation- Problems and Methods.上海外语教育出版社. 26. 冯庆华: 《实用翻译教程》, 上海外语教育出版社, 2001. 26. 辜正坤: “翻译理论著序文四篇”,《中国翻译》, 2000年第二期.第24页. 27. 辜正坤: 《中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论》, 清华大学出版社. 2003. 28. 胡壮麟:《语篇的衔接与连贯性》，上海外语教育出版社, 1994. 29. 黄国文:《语篇分析概要》，湖南教育出版社, 1988。 30 38. 石爱伟: (2004). Style and Stylistic Accommodation in Translation at www.translationdirectory.com/articles 40. 石爱伟: (2004). Hermeneutics and Translation at www.translationdirectory.com/articles . 43. 闻一多: 《唐诗杂论》, 上海古籍出版社, 2000. 46. 杨自俭: “关于建立翻译学的思考”,《中国翻译》, 1989年第四期. 第七页. 47. 叶子南: 《高级英汉翻译》, 清华大学出版社. 2001. 52. 庄绎传: 《英汉翻译教程》. 外语文教学与研究出版社, 1999. 53