번역비평에 대한 비평적 분석 = (A)critical analysis of translation criticisms

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to propose the form and content paradigms for the Translation Criticisms(TC’s) and to verify their effectiveness and practicability in the real performance of TC’s. There being the great demands for improving the Translation Quality Assessment, the general grid of measurement for TC’s has not been established properly. The absence of the pertinent TC paradigms derives from the variety of translation theories, which demonstrates the wide discrepancies between the theories and translation phenomena.
However, the existing TC’s serve as a very effective mechanism in establishing the paradigm for TC’s, for they are based on the analysis of Source Texts(ST) and Target Texts(TT) by professional critics. Also, TC’s focused on the translation critics’ viewpoints on the existing translation phenomena reveal their strategies for the evaluation and assessment of the quality of TT.
In this regard, this thesis discusses the elements required in the form and content paradigms based on the analysis of the various TC’s, grasps what the critics notice as they qualify the acceptability of TT, and suggests a kind of guideline for translation policy in the entire translation production process. The selected TC’s have been screened according to several standards such as authenticity, durability, and actuality of critics, journals, and publications. And also, having TC’s genre(literature and non-literature), Source Language and Target Language, and the category of TC’s in mind, I have adopted texts from one of the most authentic Korean academic journals In/Out: English Studies in Korea(안과밖), and a special newspapers Kyosu Newspaper(교수신문). And other analytic sources include What is Translation?(번역이란 무엇인가?), Mistranslation in Culture(문화의 오역), Ruthless Reading(잔혹한 책읽기), A Study on Korean Modern Translation History(한국현대번역 문학사 연구), and The Present Status of the Korean Literature Translation in Foreign Languages(한국문학의 외국어 번역) and so on. Based on the result of analysis of the above TC’s, the diagnoses of the TC’s treated in this study are suggested as follows.
First, there are two kinds of criticism: ‘self-criticism’ and ‘other-criticism’, which are specified into the various aspects of TC’s. In terms of common factors, the form paradigm of TCs consists of the subject, the object, the medium, and the recipient of criticisms. The subject of TC’s is divided into professional critics and general readers. The object of criticisms is broken down into the category, method, and description of the criticisms. Besides, there are four kinds of TC category: ‘individual’, ‘collective’, ‘comprehensive’, and ‘TT-oriented.’ The category of the TC plays the most significant role in constructing the body and core of TC. The ways of comparing ST(s) with TT(s) in TC’s are widely different depending on the combination mode of the four factors of person, time, text and language.
Second, the evaluation items for TC’s acceptability based on the text genre, directional text, and the goal of translation are included the intra-textual and extra-textual factors in the individual and collective TC’s. And several factors like time, language, genre, author, translator and others operates as the grid of the translation tendency in comprehensive TC’s.
Third, critics’ views in TC’s relate to internal and external elements of the texts. Separated them into ‘extra-text’s elements’ and ‘intra-text’s elements,’ I have demonstrated that their major checking elements for TT’s acceptability include ‘TT’s publishing records in target culture’, ‘translator’s qualification’, ‘translation strategy’; ‘vocabulary, sentence and paragraph translations’, and ‘translator’s carelessness.’ Particularly, critics place a great emphasis on the translators’ ethical attitude against undesirable translation practices including plagiarism, extraction, embellishment, combination regarding the ‘extra-text’s elements.’ For another, critics require translators to possess the vast background knowledge on ST and its culture, in particular, concerning translators’ qualification. If they don’t have this quality, they can be accused of ‘cultural illiteracy’ and ‘lack of translation ability.’ For still another, translators try to establish appropriate translation strategies to gratify the ST’s faithfulness and precision and TT’s readership and expectation.
And in the ‘intra-text’s elements’ of TT’s acceptability, the critics notice the degree of translators’ adaptation to ST in the first place. Thus they thoroughly point out the problematic translated cases comparing ST with TT regarding awkward word and sentence translations, omissions, additions and subtractions, misprints of ST, the sentence and paragraph arrangements and etc. Besides, they deplore the inappropriateness and unnaturalness of the target language usages. In brief, translators should try to meet the ST’s author and TT’s readers’ expectation effectively.
Finally, comprehensive criticism treats the translation phenomena in terms of times, language, genre, author, and translator and the like. The complicated factors surrounded these terms have affected the selection of the translated texts and untranslated ones and leaded the climate of translation culture, each trying to have its own hegemony against other ones. Thus these factors operate as an individual system some times and as a polysystem other times in the translation field. Consequently, critics haven't failed to notice these major or minor status, have tried to analyse and examine them and predicted the translation policies for the future. And, compared with the individual and collective criticism, comprehensive criticism has not focused on the intra-text elements and ha

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 서론 1
• 1.1 연구의 필요성과 목적 1
• 1.2 연구의 방법 및 대상 6
• II. 번역비평 선행 연구 10
• 2.1 번역비평의 정의 10
• 2.2 번역비평의 필요성 12
• 2.3 비평가의 역할 15
• 2.4 번역비평의 현실 17
• III. 번역비평 텍스트의 형식 21
• 3.1 번역비평의 종류 23
• 3.1.1 자가 비평 23
• 3.1.2 타자 비평 24
• 3.2 번역비평의 주체 25
• 3.2.1 전문 비평가 25
• 3.2.2 독자 28
• 3.3 번역비평의 객체 30
• 3.3.1 번역비평의 범주 31
• 3.3.1.1 개별적 비평 32
• 3.3.1.2 집단적 비평 39
• 3.3.1.3 총체적 비평 41
• 3.3.1.4 TT 중심의 비평 42
• 3.3.2 번역비평 방식 43
• 3.3.2.1 논제 중심 44
• 3.3.2.2 텍스트 중심 47
• 3.3.2.3 문헌 중심 49
• 3.3.2.4 인상 중심 49
• 3.3.3 서술방식 51
• 3.3.3.1 기술적 서술방식 51
• 3.3.3.2 비평적 서술방식 54
• 3.3.3.3 감상적 서술방식 56
• 3.3.3.4 시사적 서술방식 57
• 3.4 번역비평의 매체 58
• 3.5 번역비평의 수용자 61
• IV. 번역비평 텍스트의 내용 63
• 4.1 ST : TT 비평방식 64
• 4.1.1 개별적 비평 66
• 4.1.1.1 1인 역자와 관련되는 ST : TT의 비평방식 67
• 4.1.1.2 2인 이상 역자와 관련되는 ST : TT의 비평방식 70
• 4.1.2 집단적 비평 77
• 4.1.2.1 1인 역자와 관련되는 ST : TT의 비평방식 77
• 4.1.2.2 2인 이상 역자와 관련되는 ST : TT의 비평방식 79
• 4.1.3 총체적 비평 81
• 4.1.3.1 공시적인 번역사(飜譯史)에 대한 비평 82
• 4.1.3.2 통시적인 번역사(飜譯史)에 대한 비평 83
• 4.2 ST : TT의 평가기준 85
• 4.2.1 개별적 비평 및 집단적 비평 87
• 4.2.2 총체적 비평 92
• 4.2.3 ST : TT의 평가항목 94
• 4.2.3.1 번역 텍스트의 외적인 용인성 96
• 4.2.3.2 번역 텍스트의 내적인 용인성 101
• 4.2.3.3 번역비평 텍스트 평가항목표 107
• V. 번역비평 텍스트 분석 및 사례 연구 110
• 5.1 개별적 비평 110
• 5.1.1 문학 번역비평 텍스트 110
• 5.1.2 비문학 번역비평 텍스트 129
• 5.2 집단적 비평 134
• 5.2.1. 문학 번역비평 텍스트 135
• 5.2.2. 비문학 번역비평 텍스트 159
• 5.3 총체적 비평 168
• VI. 결론 178
• 참고문헌 181
• 부록 193
• 영문초록 208