3.6　綜合性文獻翻譯

綜合性文獻翻譯，從方法上講，集上述選譯、改譯、譯要、編譯于一體，對譯員來說，無論在語言上或是專業(yè)知識上都有較高的要求。綜合性文獻翻譯對了解國外政治、經(jīng)濟、文化、科技等方面特定專題的歷史、現(xiàn)狀和趨勢，對掌握動向、制定政策和規(guī)范都有重要的參考價值，它往往是重大工程和科研立項的前期工作。有時，由于專業(yè)針對性強、文獻涉及面廣、原文語種不一，綜合性文獻翻譯常非一人所為，而由二三人，甚至更多人合作完成。如某單位編印的《世界節(jié)能概況》，包括節(jié)能政策、節(jié)能措施、節(jié)能設備、節(jié)能方案、節(jié)能效果等，選譯日本、俄國以及西方國家的有關文獻數(shù)十篇，集世界節(jié)能之精華。又如上海翻譯出版公司1991年出版的《混沌學傳奇》，原名Chaos，“本書的史料局限于美國，但在此學科形成過程中，蘇聯(lián)、日本等國也有其獨特和平行的工作，我國雖起步較晚，但也不乏值得介紹之成果。為此在此譯本中另辟專章撰文補上，使譯者得窺全貌?！保ㄕ愿攀觥靶颉保┻@樣，譯者在翻譯英文文獻的同時，也補充翻譯了相關的俄文文獻和日文文獻。綜合性文獻翻譯的操作步驟是：確立專題→檢索文獻→提取符合專題需要的文本→分篇節(jié)譯→譯文的綜合編排，如有必要，譯者或主編可加上前言或后記。綜合性文獻翻譯稿的最后部分列出來原文獻的目錄。綜合性文獻翻譯時雖有刪節(jié)，但仍然強調(diào)忠于原義，保留原文有關論述的精要。當綜合性文獻翻譯涉及某一學科或?qū)I(yè)的進展、現(xiàn)狀和前景時，常保留原文文本中的數(shù)據(jù)、公式和圖表?，F(xiàn)按上述步驟說明如下：

[1] 確立專題——按委托人或譯者本人的需要定題。（本例的題目是“翻譯的性質(zhì)”）

[2] 檢索文獻——通過各種檢索工具（包括計算機），利用關鍵詞檢索并收集相關文獻。

[3] 提取文本——檢索到的大量文本并非都是有用的，需要去粗取精，提取確實有用的文本。這里，為便于說明問題，減少篇幅，只取有代表性的三種文本。

[4] 分篇選譯——從提取的各文本中摘要核心信息，以便進一步編排。

[5] 綜合編排——將譯出的信息按編章結構的要求合理安排。第一段導言，引出論題（對翻譯性質(zhì)的兩種不同看法），第二、三段分別介紹藝術派和科學派的不同觀點，第四段介紹調(diào)和派（或綜合派）的觀點，第五段說奈達由科學派轉(zhuǎn)向藝術派（段首譯者根據(jù)需要加上奈達曾是科學派的事實）。

[6] 譯者后語——第六段是譯者自擬的結語，以使這篇編譯稿成為首尾呼應、整體連貫的語篇。

[7] 最后部分——寫出綜譯稿的來源文獻?，F(xiàn)將三篇原文及其綜合譯稿列在下面（注意原文黑體部分均能在綜譯稿中找到相應的譯文）：

Nature of Translation

1

By translation here I specifically mean translating，the process of translation，in which something is translated，instead of the work translated.So far as the definition of translation is concerned，of course，it is very easy for us to copy one from a dictionary；that is，a rendering from one language into another，but that seems to be too general and simple.Various definitions have been given to translation． Now I'd like to cite some of them：

Translation is a science.

Translation is an art.

Translation is a craft.

Translation is a skill.

Translation is an operation.

Translation is a language activity.

Translation is communicating.

All the definitions mentioned above may be taken for reference because each of them is true when looked at from a certain angle.

Among them the first two are most important for they represent two schools — the school of science and the school of art.The former maintains that translating should reproduce the message of the original by means of the transformation of linguistic equivalence.It puts stress on the study of description of the process of translation，and the structures and forms of language so as to reveal the objective laws inherent in translating.The latter school advocates re-creating a literary work by using expressions of another language.It emphasizes the effect of translation.Lin Yutang（1895-1976）was once a representative.In his essay On Translation he declares that translation is an art whose success depends upon one's artistic talent and enough training.Besides these，there are no set rules for translation and there is no short cut for art.

In my opinion，both schools have their strong points and weak points so far as literary translation is concerned.Now there is a tendency to combine their theories into a comprehensive one.As a matter of fact，literary translation has a double nature.That's to say，on the one hand，it is a science with its own laws and methods and on the other hand，it is an art.Now let’s have a further discussion of its double nature in the following…

Excerpts from Ten Lectures on Literary Translation by Liu Zhongde

2

A continuous concomitant of contact between two mutually incomprehensible tongues and one that does not lead either to suppression or extension of either is translation．As soon as two speakers of different languages need to converse，translation is necessary，either through a third party or directly.

Before the invention and diffusion of writing，translation was instantaneous and oral；persons professionally specializing in such work were called interpreters.In predominantly or wholly literate communities，translation is thought of as the conversion of a written text in one language into a written text in another，though the modern emergence of the simultaneous translator or professional interpreter at international conferences keeps the oral side of translation very much alive.

At the other end of the translator's spectrum，technical prose dealing with internationally agreed scientific subjects is probably the easiest type of material to translate，because cultural unification（in this respect），lexical correspondences，and stylistic similarity already exist in this type of usage in the languages most commonl yinvolved，to a higher degree than in other fields of discourse.

Significantly, it is this last aspect of translation to which mechanical and computerized techniques are being applied with some prospects of limited success． Machine translation，whereby ultima- tely，a text in one language could be fed into a machine to produce an accurate translation in another language without further human intervention，has been largely concentrated on the language of science and technology，with its restricted vocabulary and overall likeness of style，for both linguistic and economic reasons．Attempts at machine translation of literature have been made，but success in this field，more especially in the translation of poetry，seems very remote at present.

Translation on the whole is an art，not a science.Guidance can be given and general principles can be taught，but after that it must be left to the individual's own feeling for the two languages concerned.Almost inevitably，in a translation of a work of literature something of the author's original intent must be lost；in those cases in which the translation is said to be a better work than the original，an opinion sometimes expressed about the English writer Edward Fitzgerald's “translation”of The Rubaiydt of Omar Khayydm，one is dealing with a new，though derived work，not just a translation.The Italian epigram remains justified： Traduttore traditore “The translator is a traitor.”

Excerpts from the Entry “Translation” in New Encyclopaedia Britannica，Macropaedia.

3

Most successful and creative translators have little or no use for theories of translation.In fact，some insist that only those who cannot translate become theorists of translating.In reality，outstanding translators are born，not made，since without an innate potential for the creative use of language，the study of procedures and principles of translating is unlikely to produce outstanding results．According to G.V.Chernov of the Maurice Thorez Institute in Moscow，this institute has not produced a top-flight translator during the last 25 years．Those who have the ability for outstanding creative work（and there are many such Russian translators） simply have not felt the need for such instruction.The institute has，however，been quite successful in training translators for less significant levels of competence.

We should not attempt to make a science out of translating，since it is essentially not an isolatable discipline，but a creative technology，a way of doing something which employs insights from a number of different disciplines.Translating can never be any more holistic or comprehensive than the disciplines on which it depends．Furthermore，translating，like language，must be open-ended，since it must deal with different kinds of texts，designed for quite different audiences with very different presuppositions about what a translation should be.There is no way in which these multiplicities of use，so subject to change without notice，can be neatly categorized and quantified.No methodology can stipulate all the steps in procedure which should be followed in order to arrive at proper solutions.But decisions have to be made，and great translators instinctively grasp the solutions in unpredictable ways and in a manner often unrecognized by the translators.

In a sense translating is both discouraging and challenging：discouraging because there are no simple rules to follow and no way to know in advance if a solution is completely correct and acceptable，but also challenging because it is excitingly creative.The very tensions within translating bring out the best in those who instinctively learn to play the game．

Excerpts from Translation：Possible and Impossible by Eugene A.Nida，1991．In Translation Beyond the Boundaries of Translation Spectrum，Translation Perspecties IX 1996，Edited by M.G.Rose，Center for Research in Translation，State University of New York.

翻譯的性質(zhì)（綜合編譯稿）

[1] 對于“翻譯”，現(xiàn)有多種多樣的定義，其中最重要的分歧在于翻譯是科學，還是藝術，由此分成兩派：科學派和藝術派。

[2] 科學派著重研究對翻譯過程以及語言形式和結構的描寫，以揭示翻譯過程固有的客觀規(guī)律。而藝術派則強調(diào)翻譯的效果，林語堂曾是代表人物之一。他在《論翻譯》⁽¹⁾一文中說：“翻譯是一種藝術。凡藝術的成功，必賴個人相當之藝術，及其對于該藝術相當之訓練。此外別無成功捷徑可言，因為藝術素來是沒有成功捷徑的?！?/p>

[3] 《不列顛百科全書》（詳編）解釋“翻譯”時認為：“翻譯總的說來是一種藝術，不是一門科學。翻譯可以加以指導，講授一般的原理。但除此之外，譯品的優(yōu)劣要看譯者本人對兩種語言的感知了?！蓖瑫r，該書編者也注意到機器翻譯的事實：也許最終能夠把一種語言的文本輸入機器，然后產(chǎn)生另一種語言的確切譯文，而不需要人的進一步潤濕修改，不過這種方法現(xiàn)在主要集中應用于科技語言的翻譯。該書也寫到文學作品的機器翻譯，認為“在這個領域里，特別在詩歌翻譯方面，似乎目前離成功還很遠。”

[4] 綜合兩派的長處和短處，劉重德先生就文學翻譯提出這樣的觀點：現(xiàn)在的趨勢是把它們合而為一，因為文學翻譯有雙重性——有其自身規(guī)律與方法的科學的一面，又有藝術的一面。

[5] 現(xiàn)在，譯界普遍注意到美國著名翻譯家和翻譯理論家尤金·奈達對這個問題的觀點有一百八十度的轉(zhuǎn)變。奈達曾在1964年出版過專著《翻譯科學探索》（Towards a Science of Translation），竭力推行翻譯的科學論。但是時隔二十余年，奈達開始否定他原先的看法。在1991年發(fā)表的《翻譯的可能與不可能》一文中，他寫道：“我們不應該試圖把翻譯變成一門學科，因為它本質(zhì)上不是一門獨立的學問，而是一種有創(chuàng)造性的技藝，一種靠綜合多學科的見識來處事的本領?！彼€認為，跟語言一樣，翻譯是無止無境的，譯者面對為不同讀者而作的用途各異、變化多端的原文，不可能對此作明確分類和定量分析。在操作過程中也不能一步步地規(guī)定方法來解決翻譯中的諸多問題。大多數(shù)成就卓著、富于創(chuàng)造精神的翻譯家很少用得著，或者根本用不著翻譯理論。

[6] 總之，對于翻譯是科學，還是藝術，抑或是兩者的綜合，至今仍是公說公有理，婆說婆有理。

注：本篇綜譯稿由三篇原文綜合編譯而成，各篇之末均已注明出處，來源文獻不另列。

【注釋】

(1) 林語堂，《論翻譯》，羅新璋編，《翻譯論集》，商務印書館，1984年。