| Since 1980's, translation studies have shifted from focusing on the transforming process of two sets of language signs to cultural exploration. Translation now is widely accepted as an activity of cultural exchange. As Leibniz says: "There are no two identical leaves in the world", there are no two identical languages and cultures in the world. Due to cultural difference, misreading between cultures is inevitable. Cultural misreading in translation is realized through the display of the translator's subjectivity. Initiative, purpose-orientation and restriction of the translator's subjectivity determine that cultural misreading in translation is inevitable yet restrictive. The translator is a subject of translation and a subject of the society. Cultural factors from the social context are imposed onto the translator and brought into effect through his translation practice, leading to cultural misreading in translation. The thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter one puts forward the concept of cultural misreading on the basis of translation as an activity of cultural exchange, analyzes the inevitability of cultural misreading in translation and the two types of cultural misreading, and finally points out the close relationship between cultural misreading and the translator's subjectivity. Since the "cultural turn" in translation studies was put forward, translation has been placed in the macroscopic context of cultural systems. The translator being at the central position in the subjectivity of translation holds within him the condensed factors from the cultural systems. Based on the previous definitions of cultural misreading, a new explanation is provided for the research objective of this thesis. "Cultural misreading" is the process in which the subject purposefully selects and filters the other "culture" according to his prior knowledge in order to confirm and establish the cultural ego. Cultural difference, indeterminacy and the historical sense of a text determine that cultural misreading is inevitable in translation and leave much room for the creativity of the translator. There are two types of cultural misreading. One is the "unconscious cultural misreading", and the other is the "purposeful cultural misreading". The latter will be the focus of this thesis. Chapter two is a brief survey of the studies on cultural misreading in translation at home and abroad in recent years. Early studies on the reading of texts have been conducted from the hermeneutic point of view. Now the school of translation studies plays a primary role in discussing about cultural misreading. The representatives, Andrew Lefevere, Susan Bassnett, and Lawrence Venuti, put forth their respective theories such as "theory of manipulating", "cultural function", and "resistansy" to inspect the relationship between cultural misreading and the translator. In China, the early studies were usually made from a perspective of comparative culture with Yue Daiyun as the highest priest. Since Xie Tianzhen introduced "creative treason" at the end of 1990's, studies on the role of the translator's subjectivity in cultural misreading have sprung up. Since the new century, studies on cultural disparity and invasion represented in cultural misreading have been conducted from the post-colonial perspective. Chapter three provides an introduction to the translator's subjectivity. The subject of translation, in the broad sense, includes the original author, the translator and the reader of the target text. The translator is the link between the original author and the target text reader and naturally occupies the central position. Therefore, the subject of translation, in the narrow sense, refers to the translator. The translator's subjectivity consists of initiative, purpose-orientation and restriction. The translator's initiative and the orientation of his purpose constitute the basis for his creativity. Restriction determines that the translator's creative reading of the original text is not boundless. The acceptability of c...
|
PDF Full Text Request