No description available.

Translation, the transfer of the written word from one language to another, has a long history, and many important scholars have helped shape its perceptions, accepted processes, and theories. Machine translation, translation by computer software requiring little or no human input, is the latest movement in the translation field, a possible way for the profession to keep abreast of the enormous demand for scientific, business, and technical translations. This study examines MT by placing it in a historical context — first exploring the history of translation and translation theory, then following that explanation with one of machine translation, its problems, and its potential. / Master of Arts

This work focuses on Translation as a process as experienced by the translator. It uses a psychoanalysis as a framework to examine the different aspects and stages of this process and ultimately establishes a comparison between the cathartic process of undergoing psychoanalysis with the personal changes the translator may undergo as a result of the process of translation s/he engages with.

The present study combines quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate translation strategies applied in a translation of a few chapters in Cat Counsellor, which is a book about cat behaviour. A cognitive approach and translation strategies are the focus of this essay, which arrives at the conclusion that figurative language in general, and conceptual metaphors and hyperboles in particular, are used to manipulate, or rather convince readers of Cat Counsellor of a certain outlook. The translation strategies investigated in this essay are literal translation, transference translation and meaning translation. Of these translation strategies literal translation was applied 70% of the time, which indicates that similar cultures use similar figurative language. It also indicates that the target text and language often benefit from new figurative language rendered in the source language and source text. An important conclusion is that metaphorical language, such as conceptual metaphors and hyperboles may seem easy to translate, while in fact concepts can vary across cultures, which indicate that the translator carefully has to consider his or her translation choices in order to produce an accurate translation.

Master of Arts - Translators and Interpreters / This paper analyses the decisions made in the dubbing of a comedy of a specific genre, that is, in the translation of the humour used in the English film Austin Powers, The Spy Who Shagged Me into Italian Austin Powers, La Spia Che Ci Provava as packaged on a DVD. The study attempts to answer the following question: Does the dubbing of a film diminish the humourous appeal of the film?

中国现代文学流派“七月派”强调文学创作中的“主观战斗精神”和“精神奴役创伤”，因其在文学领域异质凸显，与代表主流文化的文艺思想不尽契合，导致了 1955年中华人民共和国的第一大“文字狱”。自20世纪80年代以来，胡风事件及胡风文艺思想重新进入学术研宄视野，成为史学界和文艺界的研宄热点，但迄今为止国内外关于七月派研宄的现状并不令人满意，正如周燕芬所指出的，“现在的研宄成果中，实在留下不少史料的空白或者因史料的不信、疑虑、矛盾而带来的所谓‘分寸’，所谓‘留有余地’，说到底，依然是研宄的一种不清楚和未完成状态”（周燕芬，2013:6)。而就七月派翻译家研宄而言，也存在诸多研宄缺口。本论文论题有三：1、七月派作为“新文学的骄傲”， 其领袖人物胡风的文艺理论特质何在？影响了怎样一个文学流派及翻译家群体？2、七月派翻译家以“启蒙现实主义”为译介出发点，形成了怎样的译介主张？3、从翻译政治学、描写翻译学理论、生存心态等视角探讨以胡风、满涛、 绿原、呂荧等为代表的七月派翻译家具有哪些群体特征？本论文得出以下结论: 七月派翻译群体是我国翻译史上不可忽视的群体，他们基于启蒙现实主义思想的译介主张是以为时代和战斗而翻译，为文学经典生成而翻译，为民族文学发展而翻译为主要特征的。而胡风“为时代、为战斗而翻译”的“武器”翻译论， 满涛“传达精义”的翻译观，绿原“整体效果”、翻译“异同”性、名著重译 “接力赛”等译论，呂荧“谐意谐音”的诗歌翻译理念等等，既是对七月派翻译主张的体现和深化，又是各自翻译实践的重要指导思想。本研宄原创性在于: 在追根溯源七月派的源流、定义及其影响的基础上，从活生生的研宄对象及历史语境出发，对胡风文艺理论影响七月派翻译主张形成的过程以及七月派翻译家的文化生态作出相对可靠的历史复原，让读者对该时期的翻译历史全貌具有更清晰的了解，这在近现代翻译史研宄上不啻为一个重要发现。

Foreignness is one primary concern of Translation Studies. Chinese calligraphy, with its unique aesthetic pursuits and cultural underpinnings, presents an unusual case of foreign otherness in relation to the English language. Thus, theories derived from the translation of Chinese calligraphic culture into English can contribute to our existing knowledge of the nature of translation. Despite sporadic endeavors, translation issues related to Chinese calligraphy remain largely under-researched. This thesis constructs a theoretical framework that offers new perspectives on translating foreignness by exploring how the culture of Chinese calligraphy, concretized in the discourses of classical treatises, has been translated into English since the early 20th century. The study of English discourses on Chinese calligraphy, which include linguistic translation, cultural translation, cultural domestication, and statements of facts, reveals a special translational mode that features an interactive and flexible re-contextualization of Chinese calligraphic culture. This study finds that while the traditional practice of translation does not guarantee cross-cultural comprehensibility, the English texts have accommodated the culture of Chinese calligraphy by reconstructing its basics and resorting to visual means of representation. This thesis divides textual manifestations of Chinese calligraphic culture into three parts –– terms, descriptions and metaphors. For terms, I hold that the study of their translations from etymological perspectives implies the possibility of an endless debate on what constitutes a good translation. My study demonstrates that the repeated use of some widely accepted translations is harmless to cultural genuineness and cross-cultural understanding. For descriptive expressions, translation effects diverge from bringing out literal meanings to revealing cultural meanings. Besides, cultural dilution of varying degrees is found in translation. Calligraphic metaphors, which exemplify traditional Chinese worldviews and correlative thinking patterns, are largely unfamiliar to English-speaking readers. My study reveals a re-contextualizing endeavor that revitalizes these metaphors in the Anglo-American context. On the basis of the case study of the English texts on Chinese calligraphy, this thesis proposes a new theoretical framework for re-conceptualizing foreignness. The three components of this framework are bicultural competency, intercultural competency, and cross-cultural attitudes, all gravitating towards the goal of understanding foreignness. In addition, I introduce three levels of foreign knowledge that cover one’s perception of foreignness at different stages of understanding and with different depths. I also propose to expand the meaning of intercultural integration that is a key manifestation of intercultural competency. One salient part of this framework is that I place anthropological and traditional Chinese zhihui approaches under the structure of cross- cultural attitudes. Such a theoretical advancement empowers the explanative mechanism of the framework. Finally, I argue that the representation of foreignness as it is can be accomplished by strategic re-contextualization, and thus meanings lost in one place can be regained somewhere else.

本項研究旨在勾畫從1934年至1961年間美國詩歌的中文編譯。本項研究計劃的研究對象是這段時期在中國和香港出版的四個美國詩歌中譯選本：施蟄存編譯的「現代美國文學專號•現代美國詩抄」(1934)；袁水拍編譯的《現代美國詩選》(1949)以及《新的歌一一現代美國詩選》(1953)；馬朗編譯的 「英美現代詩特輯•美國部份」(1956)；宋淇編譯的《美國詩選》(1961)。 施、袁、馬、宋等四位詩人既編且譯，由於身處不同的地緣和文化政治語境，對中文新詩的體認各不相同，意識形態各異，同時四個案例在文本、語境、贊助人、詩學、意識形態等層面各有不同卻有所關聯，因此本文運用安德雷•勒菲弗爾(André Lefevere)的改寫理論，並適當加以補充，分析四個改寫文本各自在編纂和翻譯上的改寫體現的詩學和意識形態，並且描述四個改寫文本投射出不同的美國詩歌的形象，又同時折射出改寫者各自理想的現代中文詩歌的形 象。現存相關的英美文學中譯史研究，由於過於側重資料整理及對政治語境的描述，而對相關譯者和譯本的沒有進行足夠的研讀與探究，也沒有分析美國詩歌中譯的選本，鮮有细讀譯本，更無顧及1949年後在香港發生的翻譯現象。本項研究填補這方面的研究空白，考察四個改寫文本產生的語境和過程，分析四位改寫者的詩學和意識形態，通過比較分析他們的編纂策略和翻譯實踐，勾畫四個改寫文本互相之間的關聯，提供跨越1949、涵蓋中港兩地的美國詩歌中文編譯。

This work engages with three contemporary thinkers who offer directions for a philosophy of translation. The initial thesis is that translation is a privileged mode of examining difference in language, because it indicates both the necessity to bring what is irreducibly other or foreign into terms of familiarity, and the extreme difficulties, perhaps the impossibility, of such an enterprise. I examine the particular responses to this translation dilemma given by Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze/Félix Guattari, ultimately arguing that although Derrida gives crucial insights into the problem itself, a future theory of translation would need to go beyond Derrida’s approach and adopt the radically pragmatic approach to language articulated by Deleuze and Guattari. Throughout, I examine this problem in terms of the distinction between Derrida as a philosopher of transcendence and Deleuze and Guattari as philosophers of immanence. Derrida’s work insists on the impossibility of representing the other in language, and his simultaneous necessity and impossibility of translation is valuable insofar as it offers resistances to the presumptions of translation as standing in for the other. I argue, however, that Derrida’s insistence on impossibility as marked in the performativity of language itself is ultimately unable to give us a satisfying account of the relation between language and the world, which leaves us with no direction for how we might engage with concrete problems in actual translation situations in a productive way. The central problem with Derrida’s view is his insistence on the model of inter-lingual translation as figuring the paradox of difference in language. The approach of Deleuze and Guattari reverses this order and re-conceives of translation in a pragmatic context, where inter-semiotic translations are uniquely able to release the creative power of language. Through their articulation of the expressivity of matter, Deleuze and Guattari place language in a wider context in which it is intricately engaged in a world. I place translation in this wider context in order to demonstrate how Deleuze and Guattari’s thinking about language allows us to re-conceive of translation practices as opportunities for transformations of both language and world.

This work engages with three contemporary thinkers who offer directions for a philosophy of translation. The initial thesis is that translation is a privileged mode of examining difference in language, because it indicates both the necessity to bring what is irreducibly other or foreign into terms of familiarity, and the extreme difficulties, perhaps the impossibility, of such an enterprise. I examine the particular responses to this translation dilemma given by Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze/Félix Guattari, ultimately arguing that although Derrida gives crucial insights into the problem itself, a future theory of translation would need to go beyond Derrida’s approach and adopt the radically pragmatic approach to language articulated by Deleuze and Guattari. Throughout, I examine this problem in terms of the distinction between Derrida as a philosopher of transcendence and Deleuze and Guattari as philosophers of immanence. Derrida’s work insists on the impossibility of representing the other in language, and his simultaneous necessity and impossibility of translation is valuable insofar as it offers resistances to the presumptions of translation as standing in for the other. I argue, however, that Derrida’s insistence on impossibility as marked in the performativity of language itself is ultimately unable to give us a satisfying account of the relation between language and the world, which leaves us with no direction for how we might engage with concrete problems in actual translation situations in a productive way. The central problem with Derrida’s view is his insistence on the model of inter-lingual translation as figuring the paradox of difference in language. The approach of Deleuze and Guattari reverses this order and re-conceives of translation in a pragmatic context, where inter-semiotic translations are uniquely able to release the creative power of language. Through their articulation of the expressivity of matter, Deleuze and Guattari place language in a wider context in which it is intricately engaged in a world. I place translation in this wider context in order to demonstrate how Deleuze and Guattari’s thinking about language allows us to re-conceive of translation practices as opportunities for transformations of both language and world.