爱德华·孔兹《心经》英译本与玄奘《心经》译本的对比

在卷帙浩繁的汉语佛教典籍中,《心经》被称为"佛经之心",是最为著名的传世佛典之一。在诸多汉译本中,玄奘所译《心经》流通最广。随着佛教的海外传播,《心经》被译成多种语言,其中影响最大者,当推爱德华·孔兹版的英译《心经》。关于译者的地位和作用,余光中曾经写道:"译者与伟大的心灵为伍,见贤思齐,当其意会笔到,每能超凡入圣,成为神之巫师,天才之代言人。此乃寂寞之译者独享之特权。"[1]因为卓越的译者能将佛经翻译为各种语言,起源于印度半岛的佛教,才能在全世界拥有今天的影响力。     

Compositionality, Context, Categories and the Indeterminacy of Translation

The doctrine that meanings are entitieswith a determinate and independent reality is often believed tohave been undermined by Quine's thought experiment of radicaltranslation, which results in an argument for the indeterminacy oftranslation. This paper argues to the contrary. Starting fromQuine's assumption that the meanings of observation sentences arestimulus meanings, i.e., set-theoretical constructions of neuronalstates uniquely determined by inter-subjectively observable facts,the paper shows that this meaning assignment, up to isomorphism,is uniquely extendable to all expressions that occur inobservation sentences. To do so, a theorem recently proven byHodges is used. To derive the conclusion, one only has to assumethat languages are compositional, abide by a generalized contextprinciple and by what I call the category principle. Theseassumptions originating in Frege and Husserl are coherent withQuine's overall position. It is concluded that Quine'snaturalistic approach does not justify scepticism with regard tomeaning, but should rather result in a view that affiliatessemantics with neuroscience.     

从理雅各的英译《易经》试谈《易经》的翻译

19世纪末英国传教士理雅各的《易经》英译对中国文化在西方世界的传播和影响起了巨大的作用,他的译本经久不衰,至今仍被西方汉学家视为《易经》外译的典范。本文对理雅各及其《易经》英译本进行探讨,旨在发现其翻译的特定思路以及译本的优势与长处,寻找其不足与误译,以利新世纪《易经》英译的进一步精化与更为广泛的传播。     

耶稣会士与新教传教士对《京报》的节译

《京报》是由中国古代朝廷传知朝政的文书抄本发展而来,曾被称为“邸报”、“邸钞”、“朝报”等,到清初始固定报名。《京报》通常被认为是中国古代报纸的最高级形式。本文以天主教和新教传教士对清朝《京报》的翻译为个案,来思考来华传教士在向西方介绍和传播中国的文化情报时所出现的一些值得关注的现象。     

道安之佛经翻译及翻译思想考述

道安是中国历史上重要的佛教学者和僧团领袖。虽不通梵语,但他整理考校旧译佛经,主持并参与佛经翻译,对佛教中国化功不可没。他从亲身实践中总结出的五失本,三不易等翻译思想也为后世佛经翻译奠定了理论基础,对佛经翻译产生了深远的影响。本文考察道安对佛经翻译事业的贡献及其翻译思想。     

Analysis as Translation

Different notions of analysis have been both theorized and put to use in early analytic philosophy. Two of them stand out: connective analysis and analysis as paraphrase. The latter played a central role in the development of analytic philosophy from Frege to Quine and beyond. With the advent of formal semantics of natural language in the 1970s, paraphrase came to be characterizable as translation into a formal “target language”. While I claim that the method cannot achieve its original philosophical aims, I insist that, in spite of them, it is far from being a theoretically empty operation and that it lives on in some contemporary philosophical enterprises.

     

Millianism and Translation

According to Millianism about proper names, what a proper name semantically contributes to the sentence in which it figures is simply its referent; therefore, co-referring proper names are intercheangable salva veritate and salva significatione. In their 2019 paper published in Topoi, Felappi and Santambrogio formulate a thought-provoking argument against Millianism. Their argument aims at establishing that our normal practice of translation shows that Millianism cannot be correct. I argue that Millians can successfully reply. I will address in turn two versions of Felappi and Santambrogio’s argument, focusing especially on the second one, which apparently raises a more challenging problem for Millianism. Finally, I will consider two objections against my own strategy, and I will reply to them.