Breaking down the Dichotomized Logocentric Conceptions in Translation

摘要：傳統的二元對立思想立場已經越來越喪失其在人們心目的地位，于翻譯領域亦是如此。絕對權威、忠實、確定性、意義以及對等這些概念，其實都是邏各斯中心主義的產物。在實際翻譯過程中，譯者唯有掙脫這些理念束縛，才能客觀、辯證、靈活地完成翻譯任務。

關鍵詞：解構；權威；確定性；意義；忠實；對等

Introduction

Deconstruction cannot be considered as a translation theory， and it is even not a concrete method； however， it breaks down the traditional dichotomized logocentric conceptions， thus opening new avenues for thoughts. Generally speaking， the basic ideas of deconstructionism in translation studies can be summarized as follows：

I. Breaking down Absolute authority

Throughout the history of translation and translation studies， people have been striving for discovering the universal rules of translation so as to， as they claimed， make what I. A. Richards called “[probably] the most complex type of event yet produced in the evolution of the cosmos” （Richards， 1953： 250； cited in Gentzler， 2004： 14） more controllable and manageable. However， such a goal is not only unachievable， but also against humanity， because， on the one hand， universality calls for purity， but unfortunately， in the real world， purity of any kind is just a fiction—even the name of God is not originally pure， how， then， can we achieve purity in human activities such as translation？ On the other hand， universality means domination， one rules all， and it wipes out all the otherness， hence tyrannical. So when someone says what he or she holds or promotes is universally applicable， it should be refuted.

II. Breaking down Fidelity

Translators in the contemporary time， no matter how vicarious they feel about the source text， can never be able to restore exactly the sense of the original author in the past. Moreover， translation never occurs in a vacuum， there are always social and cultural elements involved； thus， the fidelity that we translators are often so devoted to offer eventually disseminates and dissolves—the initiator， the original author， the target receiver and the translator are all the existences of a changing world where everything is transforming， transferring and translating as well as being transformed， transferred and translated. Intertexualtiy also helps break down the notion of fidelity. Texts make references to other texts， neither the source text author nor the source text is sacred and purely original， and in doing translation， translators have already been operating on intertexuality. Therefore， in this sense， keeping fidelity is ultimately a wishful struggle in the sea of intertexuality.

III. Breaking down Certainty

Texts are never saturable， and they are constantly recontexualized. Now that texts can function by nonsaturable means in recontexualization， they have no certain shapes and cores. Texts are produced and interpreted under the comprehensive influence of various elements and forces. The styles and genres of texts are not fixed， and information that a text conveys differs in different contexts. For instance， the styles and genres of todays newspaper articles are different from those published 20 years ago； the style and the linguistic expressions in Zhang Guruos （張谷若） translations of Charles Dickens works are different from those in Lin Shus（林紓）.

IV. Breaking down Meaning

Language is a chain of signifiers （in Saussures terms）， and the signified concept is never present. Moreover， language always differs spatially and defer temporally. Contextuality and historicity enable it to change over different circumstances； hence， meaning is an effect of language， not a prior presence （the signified） merely expressed in language. Thus， apart from the series of entries listed on various dictionaries， meaning becomes the simultaneous effect of language interacting with contexts （spatial and temporal）， and there is no original， fixed presence of meaning. Meaning is generated during the process of translation and interpretation， then differs and defers， as the message of the text disseminates.

V. Breaking down Equivalence

As mentioned above， texts are uncertain with no fixed， prior presence of meaning， and the source text and the target text， which traditional metaphysics mechanically binds to the either side of the equal sign， are being constantly contextualized and recontexualized. Different translators may interpret the source text differently and render it into different versions； meanwhile， the target text faces different receivers and contexts， which eventually generate different interpretations； hence， either side is immeasurable in the traditional metaphysical sense—the equation cannot stand in reality. However， it is not to say that translators can do whatever they want in producing the target text—they just follow the reality and openly let the contextuality and historicity of the text manifest in unsaturated， diverse ways.

Conclusion

Languages are never pure—they are undergoing constant transformations. As practitioners working on different languages and texts， translators should be acutely aware of this fact and realistically， come up with practical strategies in accordance with different contexts. It should be emphasized that no translation theory or strategy is universally applicable， nor statically unalterable. In a time when harmony in diversity becomes more and more accepted among different populations， I believe that new and different thoughts， sometimes unavoidably superficial though， are always welcomed and considered as matrixes to generate more new ideas.

References：

[1]Davis， Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation [M]. Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press， 2004.

[2]Derrida， Jacques. Des Tours de Babel [R]， trans. Joseph F. Graham in Difference in Translation， ed. Joseph F. Graham： 219-227. New York： Cornell University Press， 1985.

[3]Gentzler， Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories （Revised Second Edition） [M]. Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press， 2004.

[4]蔡新樂. 翻譯與自我：德里達《死結》的翻譯學解讀與批判[M]. 北京： 中國社會科學出版社， 2008.

作者簡介：沈華東，寧波大紅鷹學院公共外語教學部講師，研究方向：翻譯理論與實踐；跨文化比較，郵編：315175。