当前位置:特彩码 > 学习频道 > 英语

英语翻译:对当前研究的思考

日期:2017-11-02 10:02:24 来源:大学生学习网

Since the beginning of human activities, especially in writing, the research has never been interrupted. Every time the activity culminates, the research tends to go deeper and the debate becomes more intense. This is not surprising. The recent debate has been about art and science. At the heart of the problem is disagreement over the view of science. It is wrong to assume that science and not science have two sides. In addition to the differences in understanding of "science", it seems that the question of scientific opinion is more important. Let's take a look at the relevant issues.

 

Is it art? Is art! Only the person who must use the language to reshape the image that has been created in the original text should be art. This is beyond reproach. But, art, not only for "in the art world, no matter what artistic image in the social life in the form of a source for your own life, with the vivid perceptual form to reflect the nature of life". The source of "life" is still in the original book. Even in literature, once upon a time, the understanding of the original works can't be played on its own. It also needs to be understood by language and logic. Besides literature, besides literature, technology, politics and so on. Of course, there are creations in this class, but we're not going to be ridiculous enough to say that this is not, or that a lot of these are artistic. So, whether it's literature, technology, or other kinds of things, there's always something to be said about science. On this question, Mr. Dong has already expounded on the construction of theory. As for the idea of "learning" in the early 2000s, or earlier, it was not like "imported goods".

 

Since then, the development of many related disciplines, especially the development of linguistics, has led to the exploration of the research along the science. In the last decade and a half, the general practitioners have made unremitting efforts to build up learning to speak up and cry out, and have conducted large-scale and beneficial explorations. Many scholars have high hopes for the establishment of science, and many scholars have also put great hopes on it. Such monographs and monographs have proliferated, but the research on this side is often misunderstood. It should be said that there are some incompleteness in the research work itself, so that the subject still in the gestation is frequently criticized. This has to raise our concerns.

 

What is science? Some people associate the word "science" with natural science such as physics and chemistry, but there is also social science and humanistic science in addition to natural science. The objects, methods and methods of the three types of scientific research are different. The comparison of learning with physics and chemistry is not impossible. It is not enough to deny that learning is a science.

 

The concept of science is confused, and it is regarded as a natural science to understand and operate, and there are people at home and abroad, causing a pool of water to get mixed up.

 

In fact, science is the system of knowledge, but not all knowledge can immediately form a system, and overnight it becomes a science. As prof qian pointed out, "knowledge consists of two parts: one part is the modern science system; And part of it is the pre-science, the experience of human practice before it goes into the scientific system." "... Whether science or pre-science is a small part of the objective world, and the situation is changing. Part of the former science, which will be rationalized in the future, is incorporated into the scientific system... "In our opinion, although human activities have been around for over a thousand years, people have long been largely dependent on other people or their own experiences. Most of the existing elaboration is only a summary of such practical experience. So, it's just "pre-science". But we cannot, therefore, categorically deny that it can move towards a science. The world is progressing and the discipline is developing. Objective things cannot be said to be science, not science. Can't make arbitrary in academia, to put forward to establish a learning thought just ` when you give a blow, trying to suppress her. We should allow exploration. To put forward "thinking" means to explore. So it is more appropriate that someone has proposed a science in exploration.

 

Since it is exploration, people should be allowed to carry on from many aspects and disciplines. A negative negation does not necessarily work. Even in natural science, the "heliocentric" of Copernicus was confirmed by Galileo, but it was only a few hundred years later that he was vindicated. But from the other side, we can't make the doctrines of the theory very well, and the more it seems, the more profound it seems. After all, learning is the result of practice, and then comes back to practice to guide the practice of learning. Study cannot be divorced from practice, which has become the consensus of workers. At present, some studies seem to have fallen into a purely collegiate study. Taking dozens of disciplines, with countless terms, does not indicate that a discipline is mature, only to make many of its concepts unclear. This "theory" appears to be extremely complex, but not necessarily practical. As for the study of unit, according to the theory of western theory, it is divided into phoneme layer, morpheme layer, word layer, phrase layer, sentence layer and discourse layer. Even the author of this theory

 

"One of the fundamental difficulties is how to find the corresponding levels in the linguistic hierarchy in each case." Even the author of this "theory" is in a quandary, and it is doubtful that such a kind of collegiate study would be of great significance to the practice of our country. Especially for pictographic and western languages like Chinese, it's harder to find value. Then further discuss what "necessary and sufficient level" or "low, high level", will become a piece of empty talk.

 

When it comes to building learning, you must design linguistics. It should be admitted that the development of linguistics has opened up new ideas for the development of science. Side, from the perspective of linguistics, by comparison with two kinds of language words, phenomenon and essence of language have wider and more profound understanding, thus can more consciously in contrast to master some language rules; Researchers from the linguistics Angle to the other side, many theory research, using the term in linguistics to the concept, in the practice of language phenomenon, sums up the experience of some systems, has obtained certain achievement. All this is due to the application of linguistics in the study. Now, the scholars who insist on being art have not yet been able to disengage from some systematic experience in the practice of the applied linguistics theory, which illustrates this point. But, as the public generally acknowledged, is art. There are no rules for artistic creation. You can do that with the same original sentence, and he can do that. Even the same person has different laws in different periods, which are not to blame, and the whole person "creates" in context. This is a; Second, as the linguists have repeatedly stated, they are "first interested in the linguistic aspects of the study process", "purely in terms of linguistic meaning". Obviously, they studied language and did not pay attention to the subjective consciousness of the author and the author. They can only make static comparisons of existing cases in language, and can only consider its surface phenomena. So, in terms of research, their research has to be biased, or very superficial; Thirdly, the modern linguistic theory is basically the study object of the west language, and the language of Chinese language is almost untouched. Such as Chen Wangdao pointed out: "so far, the theory of general linguistics can not, or rarely fully and accurately summarized has the largest population in the world, very long history, rich and developed Chinese facts and law". The origin of Chinese language, the overall structure of language and the use of language are very different from western languages. It is almost impossible to construct a linguistic set based on the western language model. And it's not just the language. To this end, linguistics has certain limitations to research. To such founded based on study of linguistics, "is not limited to find out in the process of the rule of objective existence, and to provide some workers or ` norms' ' ', it can only be a dream!

 

Here's another question about how to deal with the western theory. Admittedly, we know too little about foreign countries. Far from it, we have introduced only a few foreign theories since the reform and opening up. We hope that this situation will improve in the future to broaden our horizons and increase our knowledge. But on the other hand, we don't have to be thin on the face of the world. It is a fact that our country is backward in talent cultivation and discipline construction. But, to say our country contemporary theory research, knowledge on later than west at least twenty years `, we can't agree to this. As far as culture is concerned, cultures are not developed in accordance with the same route, and cannot be carried out in a general and equal phase. The cultural background of people's life in the world is different, and the different objective world is confronted, and the problems that need to be solved and the problems that need to be solved are different, and the experience is different. Therefore, there cannot be a universal and objective value criterion to judge the merits and disadvantages of any traditional culture, or to judge another cultural standard with some cultural values. Obviously, we can't take the theory that is produced in a certain cultural context as the standard of theory in another cultural context. It is not possible to divide the order of time, but only complement, learn from and infiltrate each other.

 

In fact, the foreign theory is also in the exploration, is not necessarily settled, even some of the embankment is not reasonable. For us, learning is a science in exploration. Based on the detailed understanding, we would not be foreign theory as a treasure, to see if ` bible,,, or surprise. In the case of naida, he thought it was science in his early days, and in The Times he emphasized it was an art. This shows that people's understanding of objective things is not immutable and should be allowed to change. There is no "this clear source" problem. Don't change the view of others, we have to follow them. On the west side of BBS has proposed equivalence problems. This formulation is not without controversy in the west.

 

Equivalence in the natural sciences as "equivalent" refers to the "value" or "effect" size "and" below. In some subjects, only "class", "generation". The western people applied it to the middle, and after it was introduced into our country, we didn't know how to "equal". And then there is the equivalent of an article. In some ways, this is an activity that cannot be done and has to be done. It involves different languages, different cultures, different customs, different ways of thinking and so on. The difference between things is particularly striking. For this reason, there is "no" phenomenon in China, which has so many "equivalent"? Moreover, there has been no quantitative formula in the humanities for the natural sciences. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no "value" for "waiting". The "lower level" and "the higher level" mentioned above are just another way of saying "straight" and "meaning", without "advanced" and "backward". Recognizing that the world is all about learning, we don't have to worship the theory of the west.

 

Since the reform and opening up, "and the world... It has gradually become a "name". Recently we have seen this on our altar. We do not yet know more meaning of the "world" 2 words, but a carefully polished feel, in the development of the culture of the countries all over the world can't be a country, or some nation first on the "track", and then other country or nation all should develop along the orbit. In the study, it is impossible to generalize from their practice the laws of the world that are universally applicable in the world. Only those who understand the language of things, have the language of things (for example, the foreign language) or the various languages of the world to enrich the experience, are qualified to discuss the true and ordinary phenomena in the discussion. In this sense, it is impossible to have a theory that is universally applicable to people who only know the language of the west. Countries or peoples with different languages should establish and develop their own theories in accordance with the characteristics of their own language. The culture of the world is not directed toward one yuan, but toward diversity. Theory of our country should move towards the world, but that should not sacrifice its own characteristics, in the west by the practice of the concept of set we made a ` ` theory ", but according to our practice put forward our nation's mouth in the forest of world culture, more with national culture is more cosmopolitan.

 

It is very important to explore the theory of the traditional Chinese system. Mr. Luo xin zhang has given us an example in this area. But this research has not done much. If our understanding of the theory of abroad, study enough, that we were on their traditional theory research is insufficient, because should we feel deficiencies in current research were attributed to the traditional theory of our country. It is not helpful for our theoretical research to move forward without the theory of predecessors. Can't say we, of course, the traditional theory is perfect, we can die hold '` elegant writing', or only 'good ` elegant writing ". From the modern perspective, there are many shortcomings of the traditional theory system in our country, it reflects the historical process of research in our country, we carefully study the foreign theory is easy to find, while countries are on the basis of its society, language and culture to build its own theory, but its development process and the theory of development in our country about the same. Therefore, we need not accuse the ancients much. We cannot measure the past by today's standards. The historical and objective view of our traditional theories will make our research less prone to "total westernization" or "Chinese cultural standard". Say from the other side, we can't take the traditional theory of only as a "burden", is a kind of, ` disorder ", at the same time should also see it as the basis of our study. The theory of our country that has been formed for over a thousand years has been handed down to the present, because it conforms to our cultural background, thinking style and practice of our country. It is conform to the rules of the development of the traditional theory in our country, as long as the careful study of our country's theory, it is not difficult to found that traditional theory system in China are composed of the paper are the culture of our country as the background, is based on the theory of people before, combined with the practice of our country to absorb foreign theory and creation. Yan fu's '` elegant writing "is one of the most typical example. Today, we should take some reasonable factors from our traditional theories and use them as the basis for our research. At the same time, we should absorb the latest achievements of contemporary foreign theories and other related disciplines at home and abroad. This kind of absorption is not only far-fetched to put the ancients' views or claims to be put together with some of the western people, one is better than the other. Absorption is based on our original theoretical system, considering the us and westerners in the cultural background, thinking style and multidimensional differences such as language structure practically sucking is good for our nutrients, their theories, short of our study and to establish the modern theory of our country.

大凡自人类开始活动,尤其是文字活动以来,对的研究便从未中断。每次随着活动高潮的到来,研究就趋向深入,研究中的争论也就愈加激烈。这是不足为奇的。近来争论的焦点算是艺术观与科学观之争了。问题的核心是对科学观的意见不一。认定是科学与不是科学的两派各执一端,但不免各有失偏颇。这其中除对“科学”的理解差异外,更主要的似乎还在于持科学主张内部的问题。现就有关的问题谈点我们的看法。

是艺术吗?是艺术!仅就者必须运用语言重新塑造原文中已塑造出的形象而言,就应当是艺术。这是无可非议的。但,又不能仅仅是艺术,因为“在艺术世界中,无论是哪一种形态的艺术形象都是以社会生活为自己的生命源泉,都以生动的感性形式去反映生活的本质”'。者的“生命”源泉仍在于原著之中。即便是文学,昔对原著的理解也不能只凭直感,任意发挥。这其中还要借助语言、逻辑去确理解之??銮?,除了文学外,还包括科技,政论等等。当然,这类中也有创造,但我们还不至于可以荒唐到或是说这类不是,或是说大量这类的都是艺术的地步吧!因此,无论是文学,或是科技,或其他种类的总还是要讲点科学。关于这个问题,董秋斯先生在《论理论的建设》一文中已有阐述。至于“学”的提法国内早在本世纪十年代,或是更早些时候已有过,并非像有人所说的是“进口货”'。

此后,许多相关学科的发展,这其中尤其是语言学的发展,促使研究沿着科学向深入探索。近一二十年,广大论工作者为建立学大声疾呼、呐喊,作了不懈的努力,进行大规模、有益的探索。界众多学者对建立学寄以厚望,不少学者也为之付诸艰辛。此类专著、专论大量涌现,蔚为大观,但是,这一面的研究工作常常为人们所误解。应该说,研究工作本身也存在一些不够完备之处,使这一仍处于孕育中的学科屡屡遭人非议。这不得不引起我们的关注。

什么是科学?有些人一提起“科学”二字就联想到物理、化学之类的自然科学,殊不知人间除了自然科学之外,还有社会科学、人文科学。这三类科学研究的对象、法及途经均不相同。把学与物理、化学相提并论,不免拟于不伦。依此而否定学是一门科学是不足为训的。

学科概念混淆,把学视为一门自然科学加以理解、运作,在国内外皆有人在,致使一潭清水越搅越混了。

其实,科学是知识的体系,但不是所有的知识都能立即构成一个体系,一夜之间就使之变成一门科学。如钱学森教授指出的,“知识包括两大部分:一部分是现代科学体系;还有一部分是不是叫做前科学,即进入科学体系以前的人类实践的经验。”“……不管科学还是前科学,只是整个客观世界的一个很小的部分,而且情况是在变化的。一部分前科学,将来条理化了,纳入到科学的体系里……”依我们之见,尽管人类的活动已有一千多年的历史,但是长期以来,人们基本上是凭借他人或自身的经验进行。现有阐述法的论著大多还只是这类实践经验的总结。因此,还只是“前科学”。但我们不能因此就断然否定它能向一门科学向发展。世界在进步,学科在发展??凸鄣氖挛锊荒苡赡橙怂凳蔷褪强蒲?,说不是就不是科学。不能在学术界搞武断,对刚刚才提出对建立学的思考`时就给予当头一棒,力图抑制她的问世。我们应该允许探索。提出“思考”就意味着是一种探索。所以有人提出是一门在探索中的科学,这是较为恰如其分的。

既然是探索,就应该允许人们从多面,多学科地进行。无端的否定未必即能奏效。即便在自然科学中,如哥白尼的“日心说”得到了伽利略的证实,成了冤案,却在几百年后才得以平反昭雪,何况人丈科学乎?但从另一面说,我们也不能就因此把学说得玄而又玄,似乎说得越玄乎就越高深。学研究毕竟是源于实践,而后又回到实践来指导实践的一门学问。学研究不能脱离实践,这己成了论工作者的共识。当前有些研究似乎已陷入了纯学院式的研究,说三道四、连篇累犊,却于实践无补。拉上几十门学科,标上无数术语,并不表明一个学科之成熟,只会导致许多概念含混不清。这种“理论”显得极其庞杂,但未必有实用价值。又如对单位的研究,按西理论的说法,划分为音位层、词素层、词层、词组层、句子层及话语层。就连提出这一理论的作者本人

都感到“的基本难点之一,就是如何能在每个具体情况下,从语言学等级体系中找到相应的层次作为单位。”。连这一“理论”的提出者都感到为难,那这类学院式的研究究竟对我国的实践有多大指导意义,就很值得怀疑了。尤其是对于像汉语这样象形文字与西语言对中就更难发现其实用价值。继而再进一步探讨什么“必要和足够层次的”或是“偏低、偏高层次的”,势必就成了一纸空谈。

提到建立学,就必定要设计语言学的问题。应该承认,语言学的发展给学的发展开拓出新的思路。一面,者从语言学的角度,通过两种语言的话语对比,对语言中的现象及其实质有了更广泛、更深刻的了解,从而能在中更自觉地掌握某些语言对比规律;另一面,许多论研究人员从语言学角度来研究,运用语言学中的术语、概念来阐述实践中出现的语言现象,总结出某些系统的经验,取得了一定成就。这一切都应归功于语言学在研究中的应用。现在坚持是艺术的学者基本上也还没脱离研究应用语言学理论所归纳出的实践中某些系统经验,就说明这一点。但是,如众所公认的,是艺术。艺术创作本无定规。同一个原著的句子在确理解的前提下,你可以这么,他又可以那么。甚至同一者在不同时期也都有不同法,均无可指责,全凭者在上下语境中去“创造”。这是一;其二,如语言学派代表人物一再申明的那样,他们“首先感兴趣的是研究过程的语言学面”,“纯粹是就语言学的意义而言”'。很明显,他们研究的是语言,并不注重研究原著作者及者的主体意识。他们只能对现成的例在语言上作静态对比,只能考虑其表面现象。因此,就研究而言,他们的研究必有偏失,或显得异常肤浅;其三,现代的语言学理论基本上是以西语言为研究对象,对汉语的语言几乎未加触及。如陈望道所指出的:“一般语言学的理论到目前为止还没有能,或者说很少能充分地、确地概括世界上使用人口最多,历史极其悠久、既丰富又发达的汉语事实和规律”。汉语语言的起源、语言的总体结构以及语言的运用等诸面与西语言截然不同。仅以西语言模式为基础建立起的语言学套在汉外对中几乎是行不通的。何况,所涉及到的不仅仅是语言问题。为此,语言学对于研究有一定的局限性。妄图在这样的语言学基础上去创立学,“不仅限于找出过程中客观存在的规律,而且要为工作者提供某些规范或`规定'”',那只能是一场迷梦!

这里还有一个如何对待西理论的问题。应该承认,我们对国外的论知之太少。远的不说,仅就改革开放以来,我们所引进的国外论的论著寥寥可数。我们殷切地希望这一状况今后能有所改善,以扩大我们研究的视野,增长我们的见识。但从另一面说,我们在世界坛面前不必妄自菲薄。要说我国的事业在人才培养及学科建设上比西国家落后,这是事实。但是,要说我国当代理论研究、认识上比西最起码要迟二十年工`,我们对此不敢苟同。就文化总体而言,各国文化不是依照同一路线发展,不可能按一个普遍的、等同的阶段进行。世界各国人民生活的文化背景不同,面对的是不同的客观世界,由此提出以及需要解决的问题不一,所具有的经验也不尽相同。因此,就不可能有个普遍的、客观的价值标准来评判任一传统文化的优劣高下,更不能用某种文化价值观念来评判另一文化标准。很明显,我们同样不能拿某个文化背景下产生的理论作为另一文化背景下产生理论的标准。这中间不可能划分时间顺序的先后,而只能是互补、借鉴和相互渗透。

其实,国外的论也是处于探索之中,也未必已成定论,甚至某些堤法未见合理。学对于我们来说是一门处于探索中的科学,对西人何曾不也是如此?基于这祥的认识,我们就不至于会把国外的论奉为至宝,视若·`圣经,,,或为之惊讶不已。就以奈达为例,他早期认为是科学,到了年代又强调是一种艺术。这说明人对客观事物认识不是一成不变的,也应该允许有所改变。这里并不存在什么“本清源”“的问题。也不要因他人观点变了,我们就得跟着转。西界的论坛上曾提出过equivalence的问题。这一提法在西也不是没有争议的。

equivalence在自然科学中为“等值”是指“量值”或“效应”大小面的“等”。在某些学科中也就只为“类”,“代”而已。西人把它应用到中,传入我国后不知怎么地为·“等值”。于是就有人便在“等值”上做文章。从某种程度上说本是一项不可为而又不得不为之的活动。它涉及到不同语言、不同文化、不同风俗习惯以及不同的思维式等等一系列问题。在东西之间这一差别尤为显著。为此,在中就存在“不可”的现象,这其中何曾有那么多的“等值”可言?况且,至今为止,在人文科学中尚无像自然科学中所具有的量化公式。因此,严格来说,中是无“值”可“等”的。又如上文中所提到的“偏低层次的”和“偏高层次的”,只不过是“直”与“意”的换一种说法而已,无“先进”,“落后”之分。认识到世界各国都在对学进行探讨,我们就无需对西的理论顶礼膜拜了。

改革开放以来,“和世界……接轨”已渐渐成为一个很时麾的“名”词儿。近来我们的坛上也时而见到这一提法。我们尚不明白“接轨”二字的更多含义,但仔细一琢磨便感到,在世界各国的文化发展中不可能有某个国家,或某些民族先走上“轨”,而其他国家或民族随后均应顺此轨道发展。研究中,不可能像自然科学那样可以由某个民族的学者从他们的实践中概括出全世界普遍适用的规律来。只有懂得东西语言,具有东西语言(譬如,汉外语言)或世界各种语对丰富经验的人,才有资格讨论中真、普通的现象。从这个意义上来说,至今不可能有,也更不能由只懂得西语言的人来建立放之四海而皆准的理论。使用不同语言的国家或民族应该按其自己语言的特点,建立与发展其自身的理论。世界的文化不是朝一元化的向,而是朝多元化向发展的。我国的理论要走向世界,但这不应牺牲自身的特点,用西的概念套我们的实践而造出``理论”,而是要按我们的实践提出我们民族的东西口在世界文化之林中,越具有民族性的文化就越具有世界性。

在探索我国的学中很重要的一点,就是如何看待我国自成体系传统的理论。罗新漳先生在这面已为我们做出了表率。但这面研究的成果毕竟还不多。要是说我们对国外的理论了解、研究得不够,那可以说我们对本国的传统理论的研究也显得不足,因应该把我们当前研究中感到不足之处都归咎于我国的传统理论。摒弃前人的理论,将之批驳得体无完肤并不有助于我们的理论研究工作顺利向前发展。当然,不能说我们传统的理论是十全十美了,我们可以死抱着‘`信达雅''不放,或是说唯有‘`信达雅”好。从现代的眼光看,我国传统的理论体系有许多不足之处,但它毕竟反映了我国研究的历史过程,我们仔细研究国外理论就不难发现,尽管各国都是在其社会、语言、文化的基础上建立起自有的理论,但其发展过程与我国的理论发展过程大致相同。因此,我们不必过多地指责古人的论。我们不能拿今天标准去衡量过去的一切。历史地、客观地看待我们的传统理论,就会使我们的研究不至于出现“全盘西化”或“中国文化本位”的倾向。从另一面说,我们不能把传统的理论仅仅看成是一种“包袱”,是一种,`障碍”,同时还应该把它看作为我们研究的基础。一千多年来所形成的我国论能流传至今,就在于它符合我们的文化背景、思维式以及我国的实践。它是顺应我国传统理论发展的规律,只要认真研究我国的各家论,就也不难发现,构成我国传统理论体系中的各家论述都是以我国的文化为背景,以前人的理论为依托,结合我国的实践,吸收国外的理论而创立的。严复的‘`信达雅”便是一个最典型的例证。今天,我们在进行研究中就应该从我国传统的理论中吸取其中合理的因素,以此作为我们研究工作的基础。与此同时,我们也要吸收当代国外理论以及国内外其他有关学科的最新成果。这种吸收不只是牵强附会地把古人的见解或主张与西人的某些说法放在一起,一比高低优劣。吸收仍要以我们原有理论体系为基础,考虑到我们与西人在文化背景、思维式以及语言结构等多面的差异,实事求是地吸吮有益于我们的养分,取各家学说之长,补我们研究之短,以此建立我国现代的理论。