论文部分内容阅读
作为人类跨语言、跨文化、跨社会实践的翻译活动,自然要受到是非对错、善恶美丑等伦理观念的支配和左右。然而目前翻译伦理研究仍存在着不同程度的缺失,不足之处大致可见于研究模式或范式的不兼容性、片面性、局限性等,除此之外,有关伦理问题的思考多偏于具体性描述,且不乏零散化等弊端,故此尚需从更高的理论层面加以梳理与整合。鉴于此,本文拟以哈贝马斯的“交往理性”观念为理论依据,分别从客观维度、社会维度和主观维度三个方面对翻译伦理进行全方位的构建。文章指出,客观维度包括译者与原文文本、译者与译文文本之间的关系,社会维度指向译者与原文作者、译者与译文读者、译者与翻译委托者及源语文化与目的语文化之间的关系;主观维度则涉及译者的自我与他我之间的关系。在上述关系中,各参与要素既相对独立,又相互作用,既相互认同,又相互制约,通过相互理解、彼此尊重、平等对话、共识共存,共同构成了翻译活动的伦理体系。
As a translating activity of cross-language, cross-culture and inter-social practice, human beings are naturally subject to and dominated by ethical concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, beautiful and ugly. However, there are still some deficiencies in the study of translation ethics at present. The inadequacies can be found in the incompatibility, one-sidedness and limitations of the research model or paradigm. In addition, the ethical issues are mostly described in detail , And there are many shortcomings such as fragmentation, it still needs to be combed and integrated from a higher theoretical level. In view of this, this article intends to take Habermas’s “communicative rationality ” as the theoretical basis, from the objective dimensions, social dimensions and subjective dimensions of the three aspects of translation ethics to build a full range. The article points out that the objective dimension includes the relationship between the translator and the original text, the relationship between the translator and the translated text, the social dimension to the translator and the original author, the translator and the translator, the translator and the translator, the source culture and the target language The relationship between culture; the subjective dimension involves the relationship between translator’s self and him and me. In the above relations, the elements of participation are relatively independent and interacting. They both recognize each other and restrict each other, and jointly constitute the ethical system of translation activities through mutual understanding, mutual respect, equal dialogue and consensus.