Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies >
New Pathways in Translation History Research from a Microhistorical Perspective: A Review of Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion
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.
XU Wensheng, WAN Ju . New Pathways in Translation History Research from a Microhistorical Perspective: A Review of Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2024 , 24(2) : 163 -175 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2024.02.015
| [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. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
