忠诚还是不忠?

IF 1.9 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Target-International Journal of Translation Studies Pub Date : 2022-12-06 DOI:10.1075/target.21001.yoo
S. Yoon
{"title":"忠诚还是不忠?","authors":"S. Yoon","doi":"10.1075/target.21001.yoo","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article examines the controversy over The Vegetarian (Han 2015), Deborah Smith’s English translation of Han Kang’s Korean novel, \n 채식주의자 Chaesikjuuija (2007). The translation, winner of the Man Booker International Prize in 2016, provoked a heated discussion in South Korea. A close analysis of three influential articles – Cho (2017), B. Kim (2017), and W. Kim (2018) – shows how the debates on the supposed mistranslation of The Vegetarian are dominated by a preoccupation with fidelity and literal translation. They dismiss the translator’s interpretation or transformation, regarding accuracy or fidelity as the sole criterion for a good translation. Significantly, the critics’ advocacy of literal translation, and hence their objections to The Vegetarian, reflect three levels of political anxiety: over ‘superior’ translation, over ‘English’ translation, and over a female translator’s ‘feminist’ translation.","PeriodicalId":51739,"journal":{"name":"Target-International Journal of Translation Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fidelity or infidelity?\",\"authors\":\"S. Yoon\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/target.21001.yoo\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article examines the controversy over The Vegetarian (Han 2015), Deborah Smith’s English translation of Han Kang’s Korean novel, \\n 채식주의자 Chaesikjuuija (2007). The translation, winner of the Man Booker International Prize in 2016, provoked a heated discussion in South Korea. A close analysis of three influential articles – Cho (2017), B. Kim (2017), and W. Kim (2018) – shows how the debates on the supposed mistranslation of The Vegetarian are dominated by a preoccupation with fidelity and literal translation. They dismiss the translator’s interpretation or transformation, regarding accuracy or fidelity as the sole criterion for a good translation. Significantly, the critics’ advocacy of literal translation, and hence their objections to The Vegetarian, reflect three levels of political anxiety: over ‘superior’ translation, over ‘English’ translation, and over a female translator’s ‘feminist’ translation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51739,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Target-International Journal of Translation Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Target-International Journal of Translation Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21001.yoo\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Target-International Journal of Translation Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21001.yoo","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章探讨了黛博拉·史密斯对韩康的韩语小说《老外老外》(2007)的英译《素食者》(2015)所引发的争议。这部翻译作品获得了2016年布克国际奖,在韩国引发了热烈的讨论。对三篇有影响力的文章——Cho(2017)、B. Kim(2017)和W. Kim(2018)——的仔细分析表明,关于《素食者》所谓的误译的辩论是如何被对忠实度和直译的关注所主导的。他们不重视译者的解释或转换,认为准确或忠实是翻译好坏的唯一标准。值得注意的是,评论家们对直译的支持,以及他们对《素食者》的反对,反映了三个层面的政治焦虑:对“高级”翻译的焦虑,对“英语”翻译的焦虑,以及对一位女译者的“女权主义”翻译的焦虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fidelity or infidelity?
This article examines the controversy over The Vegetarian (Han 2015), Deborah Smith’s English translation of Han Kang’s Korean novel, 채식주의자 Chaesikjuuija (2007). The translation, winner of the Man Booker International Prize in 2016, provoked a heated discussion in South Korea. A close analysis of three influential articles – Cho (2017), B. Kim (2017), and W. Kim (2018) – shows how the debates on the supposed mistranslation of The Vegetarian are dominated by a preoccupation with fidelity and literal translation. They dismiss the translator’s interpretation or transformation, regarding accuracy or fidelity as the sole criterion for a good translation. Significantly, the critics’ advocacy of literal translation, and hence their objections to The Vegetarian, reflect three levels of political anxiety: over ‘superior’ translation, over ‘English’ translation, and over a female translator’s ‘feminist’ translation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Target promotes the scholarly study of translational phenomena from any part of the world and welcomes submissions of an interdisciplinary nature. The journal"s focus is on research on the theory, history, culture and sociology of translation and on the description and pedagogy that underpin and interact with these foci. We welcome contributions that report on empirical studies as well as speculative and applied studies. We do not publish papers on purely practical matters, and prospective contributors are advised not to submit masters theses in their raw state.
期刊最新文献
Subtitlers’ beliefs about pivot templates Disruptive AVT workflows in the age of streaming Can you amuse the audience through an interpreter? Review of Bielsa (2023): A Translational Sociology: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Politics and Society Theorizing a postmodern translator education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1