网络出版日期: 2024-04-28
基金资助
本文系国家社科基金研究项目“中国共产党百年翻译史研究”的阶段性成果(编号 23BYY111)
New Pathways in Translation History Research from a Microhistorical Perspective: A Review of Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion
当前,翻译史研究已有从传统“自上而下”的历史研究方法转自“自下而上”的微观史学视角趋势。翻译史需兼具历史与翻译,二者不可偏颇,皆不可废。马戛尔尼使团于1792年访华,其作为中英官方的第一次正式接触,影响深远。翻译在该活动里的重要角色及带来的沟通问题却鲜为人知,有待彰显。《龙与狮的对话》从翻译史学角度基于大量珍贵档案和新资料抽丝剥茧,对使团全过程中译员背景、国书、敕谕、礼品清单、往来书信等各类文件的翻译和改写进行深入挖掘和分析,展现了翻译在该访华事件乃至近代中国外交活动中的重要性。该书资料丰厚翔实、论述严密,对该使团研究诸多问题提出新见解,弥补了现有研究空白。该书不仅是对马戛尔尼使团访华历史记忆的重审与重构,更是翻译史研究的一次创新性融合,在史料运用、研究视角、研究路径方面破除学科壁垒、互相融合,为近代中国翻译史、中英外交史研究提供了重要参考与典范,提供了一定程度的启示与阐发,有助于推进中国译史研究真正走向纵深。
许文胜, 万菊 . 微观史学视阈下翻译史研究新路径——兼评《龙与狮的对话》[J]. 当代外语研究, 2024 , 24(2) : 163 -175 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2024.02.015
Currently, research in translation history has seen a shift from traditional “a view from above” methods to “a view from below” microhistorical perspective. Translation history research integrates both history and translation without bias or neglect to either. The Macartney Mission’s visit to China in 1792, marking the first official communication between Chinese and British officials, had profound and far-reaching impacts. Yet, the significant role of translation in this event and the communication issues it presented are little known and deserve recognition. Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion meticulously unravels the visit from a translation history perspective, drawing on a wealth of precious archives and new materials, showcasing the importance of translation in modern Chinese diplomatic activities. The book is rich in data and rigorous in argumentation, offering new insights into many aspects of the Mission and filling existing research gaps. It not only re-examines and reconstructs the historical memory of the Mission but also represents an innovative integration in translation history research. Breaking disciplinary barriers in terms of source material utilization, research perspectives, and methodologies, the book reflects and integrates with each other, providing significant references and models for modern Chinese translation history and Sino-British diplomatic history research. It offers insights and elucidations that are conducive to advancing the depth of research in Chinese translation history.
| [1] | Adamo S. 2006. Microhistory of translation[A]. In G.L. Bastin & P. F. Bandia (eds.). Charting the Future of Translation History. Current Discourses and Methodology [C]. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. 45-69. |
| [2] | Apter E. 2006. The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature[M]. Princeton University Press. |
| [3] | Brownlie S. 2016. Mapping Memory in Translation[M]. Basingstoke: Springer. |
| [4] | Burke P. 2001. Overture to the new history: its past and future [A]. In P. Burke (ed.). New Perspectives on Historical Writing[C]. Cambridge: Polity Press.1-25. |
| [5] | Certeau M. 1986. Heterologies:Discourseon the Other[M]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. |
| [6] | Ginzburg C., J. Tedeschi& A.C. Tedeschi. 1993. Microhistory: Two or three things that I know about it[J]. Critical Inquiry 20(1) :10-35. |
| [7] | Grigg S. 1991. Archival practice and the foundations of historical method[J]. The Journal of American History 78(1): 228-239. |
| [8] | Harrison H. 2021. The Perils of Interpreting: the Extraordinary Lives of Two Translators. between Qing China and the British Empire[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press. |
| [9] | Hermans T. 2011. Translation and History: A Textbook[M]. Milton: Taylor & Francis. |
| [10] | Levi G. 1991. On Microhistory[A]. In P. Burke (ed.). New Perspectives on Historical Writing[C]. Cambridge: Polity Press. 93-113. |
| [11] | Levi G. 2012. Microhistory and the recovery of complexity[A]. In S. Fellman & M.Rahikainen (eds.). Historical Knowledge: In Quest of Theory, Method, and Evidence [C]. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 121-132. |
| [12] | Magnússon S. G. & I. M. Szijártó. 2013. What is microhistory? Theory and Practice[M]. London: Routledge. |
| [13] | Munday J. 2014. Using primary sources to produce a microhistory of translation and translators: theoretical and methodological concerns[J]. The Translator 20(1): 64-80. |
| [14] | Santoyo J. C. 2006. Blank spaces in the history of translation[A]. In G. L. Bastin & P. F. Bandia (eds.). Charting the Future of Translation History. Current Discourses and Methodology [C]. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. 11-43. |
| [15] | Sharpe J. 1991/2001. History from below[A]. In P. Burke (ed.). New Perspectives on Historical Writing [C]. Cambridge: Polity Press.25-43. |
| [16] | Toury G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond[M]. Amsterdam &. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. |
| [17] | van Dijck J. 2007. Mediated Memories in the Digital Age[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press. |
| [18] | Walcot J. 1792. Ode to Kien Long, the Present Emperor of China[M]. London: Thomas. |
| [19] | 包雨苗. 2019. 试论翻译史个案研究法中微观与宏观的关系[J]. 外语教学 40(3):93-97. |
| [20] | 方梦之、 傅敬民. 2018. 振兴科学翻译史的研究—应用翻译研究有待拓展的领域[J]. 外国语(上海外国语大学学报)(3):67-75. |
| [21] | 方梦之. 2011. 中国译学大辞典[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社. |
| [22] | 侯松. 2018. 翻译与记忆研究中国路径的思考[N]. 中国社会科学报(05-08):003. |
| [23] | 黄焰结. 2012. 翻译史研究的当下话语与方法论——《勾画翻译史的未来》述评[J]. 外国语(上海外国语大学学报) 35(1):62-68. |
| [24] | 蓝红军. 2010. 翻译史研究方法论四题[J]. 天津外国语学院学报(3):44-48. |
| [25] | 蓝红军. 2016. 整体史与碎片化之间:论翻译史书写的会通视角[J]. 中国翻译(1):5-11. |
| [26] | 秦国经、 高换婷. 1998. 乾隆皇帝与马戛尔尼[M]. 北京: 紫禁城出版社. |
| [27] | 屈文生. 2018. 翻译史研究的面向与方法[J]. 外语教学与研究(6):830-836. |
| [28] | 王宏志. 2014. 翻译与近代中国[M]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社. |
| [29] | 王宏志. 2023. 龙与狮的对话:翻译与马戛尔尼访华使团[M]. 上海: 东方出版中心. |
| [30] | 王建开. 2007. 翻译史研究的史料拓展:意义与方法[J]. 上海翻译(2):56-60. |
| [31] | 俞金尧. 2011. 微观史研究与史学的碎化[J]. 历史教学 (12):3-5. |
| [32] | 张剑. 2021. 从“灯塔”到“暴君”——马戛尔尼访华事件的文学再现[J]. 外国文学(5):137-148. |
| [33] | 邹振环. 2017. 20世纪中国翻译史学史[M]. 上海: 中西书局. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
