《当代翻译理论》埃德温.根次勒

Contemporary translation theories

By Edwin Gentzler 1 The North American Translation Workshop

In many academic circles in North America, literary translation is still considered secondary activity, mechanical rather than creative, neither worthy of serious critical attention nor of general interest to the public. Translators, too, frequently lament the fact that there is no market foe their work and that what does get published is immediately relegated to the margins of academic investigation. Yet, a closer analysis of the developments over the last four decades reveals that in some circles literary translation has been drawing increasing public and academic interest.

In the early sixties, there were no translation workshops at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Translation was a marginal activity at best, not considered by academia as a proper field of study in the university system. In his essay \"The State of Translation, \" Edmund Keeley, director of translation workshops first at Iowa and later at Princeton, wrote,\" In 1963 there was no established and continuing public forum for the purpose: no translation centres, no associations of literary translator as far as know, no publications devoted primarily to translations, translators, and their continuing problems\"(keeley, 1981:11). In this environment, Paul Engle, Director of the Writers' Workshop at the University of Iowa, gave the first heave; arguing that creative writing knows no national boundaries, he expanded the Creative Writing Program to include international writers. In 1964 Engle hires a full-time director for what was the first

translation workshop in the United Stated and began offering academic credit for literary translations. The following year the Ford Foundation conferred a $150,000 grant on the University of Texas at Austin toward the establishment of the National Translation Center. Also in 1965, the first issue of Modern Poetry in Translation, edited by Ted Hughes and Daniel Weissbort, was published, providing literary translators a place for their creative work. In 1968, the National Translation Center published the first issue of Delos, a journal devoted to the history as well as the aesthetics of translation had established a place, albeit a small one, in the production of American culture.

The process of growth and acceptance continued in the seventies. Soon translation courses

and workshops were being offered at several universities-Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Iowa, Texas, and State University of New York, Binghamton among them. Advanced degrees were conferred upon students for creative, historical, and theoretical work in the field of literary translation. This, in turn, led to the establishment of the professional organization American Literary Translators Association(ALTA) in the late seventies as well as the founding of the journal Translation for that organization. By 1977, the United States government lent its authority to this process with the establishment of the National Endowment of the Humanities grants specifically for literary translation. For a while in the late seventies and early eighties, it looked as if the translation workshop would follow the path of creative writing, also considered at one time a non-academic field, and soon be offered at as many schools as had writing workshops.

But despite the increase in translation activity and its gaining of limited institutional support in the sixties and seventies, the

process of growth plateaued. Many assumptions about the secondary status of the field remained. Today, while many universities offer advanced degrees in creative writing, comparatively few offer academic credit for literary translation. One reason is surely the monolinguistic nature of the culture. Howerer, such typecasting is also due to socio-economic motives: labeling translations as derivative serves to reinforce an existing status quo, one that places primary emphasis not on the process but on the pursuit and consumption of \"original\" meaning. The activity of translation represents a process antithetical to certain reigning literary beliefs, hence its relegation to marginal status within educational and economic institutions and its position in this society as part of a counter-cultural movement.

Indeed, during the sixties and early seventies, the practice of literary translation became heavily in representations of alternate value systems and views of reality. While not taken seriously by academics,

sales

of

translated

literary

texts

enjoyed

unprecedented highs on the open market. Perhaps no one articulated the political urgency and popular attraction of literary translations during this period better than Ted Huges:

That boom in the popular sales of translated modern poetry was without precedent. Though it reflected only one aspect of the wave of mingled energies that galvanized those years with such extremes, it was fed by almost all of them-Buddhism, the mass craze of Hippie ideology, the revolt of the young, the Pop music of the Beatles and their generation... That historical moment might well be seen as...an unfolding from inwards, a millennial change in the Industrial

West's view of reality. (Hughes. 1983:9)

For Hughes, the translation boom of the sixties was simply

one aspect of a generational movement that articulated itself in a variety of media. While his view of translation as anti-establish may not have been true of all translation during this period, it did hold true for a large and influential group of contemporary American poets actively translating at the time: Zdynas's notes seem characteristic of prevailing assumptions regarding the teaching of translation in the United States. He shares the assumption that creative writing cannot be taught, that creative talent is something one is born with. Such a belief plagued creative writing for years before it was accepted as an university discipline. Secondly, Zdanys reveals a prejudice for teaching students how to enjoy the original poem, one that is in keeping with New Critical tenets. His conclusion is not altogether surprising-although he argues against conventional wisdom that translation can be taught at the university, he does it not for reasons Ted Hughes suggested-that it may lead to a change in the West views reality-but because it reinforces a fairly conservative humanistic ideology. This is nowhere better revealed than in a contradiction within the essay regarding the theoretical basis of the course. On the one hand, Zdynas hopes the course will attract students interested in theoretical question; on the other hand, he argues that he himself opposes the restraints of \"predetermined aesthetic theories.\" in addition, without telling us why, Zdanys says that \"this essay unfortunately cannot consider\" the contribution of deconstruction to the field. Although, ironically, Yale itself houses numerous such critics who are in fact part of the same department (a special interdepartmental program) in which the course was offered.

Zdanys clearly finds translation a subjective activity, subsuming translation under the larger goal of interpreting

literature. His argument that the study of translation can lead to a qualitative \"richer\" understanding reveals the humanistic agenda. His goal is more clearly disclosed in a section of the same essay in which he talks about the presence of a female linguistics students who, despite Zdany's \"initial misgivings\" about what she might contribute to the seminar, actually brought a \"valuable and intriguing\" perspective to the aesthetic process he was teaching. Zdanyd contradicts his stated premise-a rejection of predetermined aesthetic theories-when he concludes that although her approach was a \"refreshing\" addition to the course, he \"secretly hopes\" that he \"converted\" her during the course. The lingering question is \"converted her to what?\"

Zdynas's notes seem characteristic of prevailing assumptions regarding the teaching of translation in the United States. He shares the assumption that creative writing cannot be taught, that creative talent is something one is born with. Such a belief plagued creative writing for years before it was accepted as an university discipline. Secondly, Zdanys reveals a prejudice for teaching students how to enjoy the original poem, one that is in keeping with New Critical tenets. His conclusion is not altogether surprising-although he argues against conventional wisdom that translation can be taught at the university, he does it not for reason Ted Hughes suggested- that it may lead to a change in the way the West views reality- but because it reinforces a fairy conservative humanistic ideology. This is nowhere better revealed than in a contradiction within the essay regarding the theoretical basis of the course. On the one hand, Zdynas hopes the course will attract students interested in theoretical; on the hand, he argue that he himself opposes the restraints of \"predetermined aesthetic theories.\" In addition, without telling

us why, Zdanys says that \"this essay unfortunately cannot consider\" the contrition of deconstruction to the field, although, ironically, Yale itself houses numerous such critics who are in fact part of the same department (a special interdepartmental program) in which the course was offered.

Zdanys clearly finds translation a subjective activity, subsuming translation under the larger goal of interpreting literature. His argument that the study of translation can lead to a qualitative \"richer\" understanding reveals the humanistic agenda. His goal is more clearly disclosed in a section of the same essay in which he talks about the presence of a female linguistics student who, despite Zdanys's \"initial misgivings\" about what she might contribute to the seminar, actually brought a \"valuable and intriguing\" perspective to the aesthetic process he was teaching. Zdanys contradicts his stated premise-a rejection of predetermined aesthetic theories-when he concludes that although her approach was a \"refreshing\" addition to the course, he \"secretly hopes\" that he \"converted\" her during the course. The lingering question is \"converted her to what?\"

That unarticulated \"what\" is the topic I wish to address in this chapter. Scholars associated with the North American translation workshop premise tend to claim that their approach is not theoretically preconditioned; this chapter attempts to formulate the non-dit present in their works, to analyze those underlying assumptions, and to show how they either reinforce the existing literary edifices or offer a counterclaim that deserves further consideration. Through this

approach, I hope to show that the translation workshop approach actually does both, i.e., simultaneously reinforces and subverts, and that this dual activity, necessarily operative because

of the methodology, is in itself a contribution to the ongoing investigation of not only translation phenomena, but of language in general.

2 Frederic Will: The paradox of translation

While Richards's work in translation might be charactererized as an extension of his literary criticism, Frederic Will's literary theory- initially not unlike Richards's- has changed much because of his involvement in translation. Will's work in translation theory is symptomatic of that of many adherents of the American workshop approach. Will first taught Classics at the University of Texas, where he founded the journal Arion with William Arrowsmith. He then moved to the forefront in translation by accepting the directorship of the translation workshop at the University of Iowa in 1964. In 1965, he founded Micromegas, a journal devoted to literary translation, each issue focused on the poetry of a different country. His first theoretical text Litersture Inside Out, published in 1966, raised questions about naming and meaning and indirectly suggests that translation can be viewed

as

a

form

of

naming,

fiction-making,

and

knowing(Will,1966:15). His next book, The Knife in the Stone, published in 1973, dealt directly with the practice of translation; and parts of it rearticulated his workshop experience at Iowa.

Although Will's early text did not specifically address translation problems, certain relevant theoretical assumptions are visible. Will's project picks up where Richards's left off: he uses New Critical beliefs to try to reconcile recent critical theories. Will's first essay \"From Naming to Fiction Making\" in Literature Inside Out appears to agree with a theory of cultural relativism. Holding that different languages construct separate realities and that what any particular word refers to cannot be determined

precisely,Will calls into question translation theories based on reference to a universal objective reality. Reality can only be learned, he argues, through the names we give it, and so , to a certain degree, language is the creator of reality. Will also distances himself from theories that posit a notion of univeral themes or motifs, theories which do not view symbol-making as part of a human activity. At the same time, however, Will argues that knowledge of essence is possible:\"The core of the self, the theme of its efforts, is love,\" which is a power unto itself and can bring

the

outer

reality\"into

the

focus

of

consciousness\"(Will,1966:9). Naming, for Will, is the fundamental activity of man-without the

power to name we would have remained savages. Language, thus, he argues, takes on our character, out rhythm, our desires, and reveals our true inner selves. Will continues to say that The self's effort, in naming, is not mere verbal play but is part of its overall effort to translate the outer into the human. This situation follows from the unity of the self. In such unity the expression of a core-movement, the self, all bear the character of that movement.

Each

expression

bears

the

core's

character.(Will,1966:13 )

As opposed to an objective outer reality that can be translated across cultures, Will posits a central common core of human experience and emotions that can overcome the indeterminate nature of language and bring that \"outer reality\" into focus. We translate our selves into language; naming does not necessarily give us any insight regarding outside reality(that to which language refers), but it does help us to better know our inner selves.

The power of this inner understanding and knowledge is

further elaborated in the second essay, \"Literature and Knowledge,\" in which the influence of Richards is everywhere to be seen. Literature, according to Will, also \"embodies truth and knowledge\" (1966: 17). The New Critical tenet of the unity of the original text is also adopted; Will argues that a work of literature \"is a deeply unified verbal event occurring in a self.\" the words that compose a work of literature, so important to Pound, are merged with the whole for Will, and \"are, in some sense, literally one.\" in the literary work, \"most or all\" of the levels of meaning of words, and Will lists five-dictionary, contextual, symbolic, interpretative, and inner aural and visual overtones- \"are made one\" (Will, 1966:18). Will's agenda, like Richards' s, is fundamentally didactic, not just in terms of developing competent literary critics, but also in terms of a larger, humanistic goal. Literature, according to Will not only \"gives us the power to understand,\" but also serves as a means to understand a higher metaphysical power. Will clearly believes that \"that power to understand something is 'knowledge' of something.\" Yet we have seen that Will is skeptical about our ability to know objective reality. He concludes with the rhetorical question, \"Will else can knowledge be, even about the natural world or about God, except the power to understand them?\" (Will, 1966; 2 4 ). Literary works present us with models by which we can \"clarify\" the real, irrational world that we experience as a \"confusion of intermingled space, action, and character.\" literature thus deepens and enriches our lives as well as gives us a better understanding of our own true selves.

Will then reexamines his own theory after his experience in the translation workshop at the

University of Iowa and after have after having read Pound.

Although his next theoretical text, The Knife in the Stone, retain metaphysical concepts, many of his romantic notion of love and humanistic believes in the power of the heart dissipate. His concept of text becomes less of a unified and coherent whole; instead it is seen as being interwoven with reality, subject to use, change, and variable interpretations. In The Knife in the Stone, Will uses translation as the \"testing ground\" for his theory, and clearly the goal is to substantiate the metaphysical beliefs he brings to the project: The inter-translatibility of languages is the firmest testing ground, and demonstration ground, for the existence of a single ideal body of literature. If there is any meaning, to the ideal of such a body, it will show itself through as effort to equate literature in one language with literature in another,(Will,1973;42)

Again, the opposition includes those who are skeptical about the possibility of translation, those who question concepts of literariness, and those who find the concept of referentiality problematic. Will names Sartre and Mead, whose theories posit inner \"selves\" who are not ware of the universal core of human experience, but are, in Will's terminology, \"groundless\" and \"social constructed\" respectively. Though the test of translation, Will intends disprove the \"relativity\" thesis and show that one universal common ground-that of the single ideal body of literature-does, in fact, enjoy \"inter-translatibility\". However, Will's argument, when put to the test, dose not confirm his initial presuppositions, but causes him to alter his conception of translation in a manner that may be of interest to contemporary theory.

The change in the logic of Will's argument is most apparent in the final essay of The Knife in the stone, called paradoxically

\"Faithful Traitor\a play on the Italian aphorism tradutore, traditore. Briefly, the article reviews his experience teaching at Iowa. In the course of the activity of actual translation, it became clear to Will that what he was translating had less to do with the meaning of the text and more with the energy of the expression, how meaning was expressed in language. He found himself using a kind of Poundian theory. The cultural relativity thesis that once was so problematical is adapted by turning it back in on itself, not to oppose his practice, but to contribute as an equally always present part. Since language is indeterminate, since we never have access to be the meaning behind specific language, all the more reason to be free and trust not what language says but what the language does. The traditional notion of translation to fall into categories of \"faulty equivalences\" and of \"versions\" of the original. What Will

advocates instead is an approach that translates not what a work meaning, but the energy or \"thrust\" of a work, for which there is no \"correct\" way of translating.

翻译研究

20世纪70年代末，一条新的学术原则诞生，那就是翻译研究。有人认为，没有问自己是否语言学和文化现象真的属于翻译性，并且探索一定程度上的\"相等\"概念，我们就无法在翻译上读懂文学。

当苏珊.巴斯奈特的《翻译研究》在《新口音系列》上发表，就很快的成为一本每位学生都应该拥有的说明书。巴萨奈特教授回答了这些翻译的关键性的问题，提供了翻译理论的历史来源，从古代罗马人开始，包含了21世纪的关键性工作。然后，她从时钟，从原文的实际解析探索了文学翻译的具体问题，她完成她的作品，里面提出了进一步阅读的广泛性建议。

作品发表的20年后，翻译研究的领域继续扩大，但是有一样没有变，那就是第二次更新苏珊巴萨奈特的《翻译研究》仍然重要的阅读

经典。

《当代翻译理论》埃德温.根次勒 第二章北美翻译工作室

在北美的很多学术圈，人们依然把文学翻译看作次要活动，机械性而非创造性，既没有让人深切关注的价值也没有让公众的普遍兴趣。翻译者也是如此，经常因这样的事实而哀叹：他们的工作没有市场前景，他们的作品一出版就降为学术调研的空白。然而，近40年来发展的亲密的解析者透露，在某些圈，文学翻译已经吸引了公众和学术界的关注。

在60年代早期，美国高层学习的机构并没有翻译的工艺品，翻译充其量只是一项空白的活动，在大学体系下，作为合理学习的领域，翻译并没有被学术界所认同。埃姆德.基利，一位翻译工艺品最先在爱荷华州和随后的普林斯顿发表的总策划，在他的散文《翻译的陈述》中写道，1963年，不以创办和继续公众论坛为宗旨：据我所知，没有翻译中心，没有文学翻译的社团。没有出版愿意主要为翻译，翻译者以及这些所引发出来的一系列问题而服务。鲍尔.恩格勒，爱荷华州大学的作家工艺品的总编，在这种情况下，成为第一倡导之人，认为创造性写作没有国界，并且把创造性写作项目扩展到了国际性的作家。1964年，恩格勒在美国雇佣了全职主编来做第一件翻译工艺品，开始为学术债权人提供文学翻译。接下来的一年，福特基金会协商拨款150，000美元给德州大学在奥斯丁创办国际翻译中心。1965年，泰德休斯和丹尼尔维斯波特主编《现代翻译诗歌》第一版的发表，为创造性工作提供了一个文学翻译舞台。1968年，《德洛斯》第一版在国家翻译中心的出版，

这是一本专门讲述历史和翻译的美学。文学翻译已经出现了一个平台，虽然在美国文化的产物里，这只是一个小小的平台。

成长与接受的过程一直持续到70年代。不久之后，就有好几个大学提供翻译课程和工艺品，其中包括耶鲁大学，普林斯顿大学，哥伦比亚大学，爱荷华大学，德州大学，纽约州立大学，餅厄姆顿大学。为学生的创造学，历史学和理论学提供高级学位。反之，这引发了70

年代后期的专业组织“美国翻译家协会”的创办，为那样的组织，《翻译》期刊也成立了。到了1977年，美国政府为这一专门给文学翻译拨款的人文学科国家授权的创办过程提供了一些专家。不久之后的70年代末80年代初，看上去翻译工艺品好像追随着创造性写作的道路。也有人认为一次性一个非学术性领域会很快的提供到很多学校像写下的作品那样多。但是，尽管在六七十年代，翻译活动有所增加并得到少数机构的支持，它的成长过程已经稳定下来。产生了关于这一领域的次要位置的很多假设。如今，很多大学给创造性写作提供了高级学位，为文学翻译的机构贷款提供了少量的资金。一个原因是文化的单一语言本质。然而，这样的类型转换也因为社会经济的刺激，标明翻译作为衍生的服务来加强现存地位的现状，一个那样的地方起初并不强调过程而是在追求和原始意义的消费。翻译的活动展现了对立的过程到，某一卫冕的文学信仰，因此，它作为反文化运动的一部分，在教育制度和经济制度以及它的社会地位已经降级到边缘地位。

确实，在60年代和70年代早期，文学翻译的实践成为深深的卷入了备用价值体系和现实观的代表。然而，并没有被学者当真的文学文本翻译销售在公共市场受到史无前例的欢迎。也许没人可以阐明在这一阶段政治紧迫性，文学翻译比塔德修斯更受人欢迎的吸引力：现代翻译诗歌受欢迎的销售发展繁荣且史无前例，尽管这只反映了混合能量波的其中一个方面。这些能量波以如此极端的方式激励着这些年，大部分受到这些的影响：佛教，一个极其疯狂的嬉皮理论，年轻人的反抗，甲壳虫乐队的流行音乐以及他们的后代.....可能会作为、、、见证那个历史性的时刻，内心没有展现出来的，西方工业化的现实观经历着千年的变化。（休斯，1983.9）

对于休斯来说，六十年代的翻译发展是简单的一代人的运动，用各种不同的媒体有力的表达出来。然而在这一阶段，他对于作为反建立的翻译的观点不一定对所有的翻译都有用，但是这观点对于大型的影响很深的现代美国诗歌翻译群体的确是真的。

在美国，把Zdynas的笔记当作翻译的教材看上去有一种普遍假设的特征，他分享这个假设：创造性的这种潜能是先天性的，导致创造

性写作是无法教授。这样的信念在创造性写作作为大学原则被人们接受之前，给它带来了多年的灾难。其次，zdanys以能够教学生

怎样欣赏原作诗歌为傲，其中一点就是要保持新的重要原则。他这样的结论毫不奇怪。因为这将有可能带来西方现实观的新的变化，尽管，他提倡反对惯例性的智慧，也就是翻译能够作为大学课程来教，并不是因为休斯的提倡。而是因为迫于非常传统的人道主义理论。矛盾散文中作为课程没有比揭示出来更好的的理论基础。一方面，zdynas希望课程吸引学生，使他们对理论性问题感兴趣。另一方面，他认为他自己反对受到预先决定的美学理论的束缚。总之，没有说为什么，zdanys只说，这篇散文很不幸，不能思考。尽管，很讽刺，耶鲁的数不清的批评家事实上都是相同系的其中一部分。这些系的课程是客观的，不能改变。.

Zdanys 很清楚的了解翻译是一门主观上的活动，包含着口译文学这一大目标之下的翻译，他认为对于翻译的学习能够使得理解“更丰富”这一定性来揭示人性的议程。他的目标很明确的揭示了在相同散文的同一个部分，这相同的散文讲述的是语言学专业的一个女学生出席研讨会。尽管zdany开始很担心这学生能否为研讨会出谋划策，但是事实上这女学生给审美的过程提出了一个即有价值又引人注意的观点，这一观点zdany曾经在课堂上教过。Zdany否认他的陈述前提，即对于提前决定审美理论的反驳。虽然女学生的方法是是枯燥的课程添加趣味，但最后，他还是秘密的希望自己能够通过课堂来改变她。纠结的是，要把她改变成什么？那不明确的表达“什么”是我要在这章里讨论的主题。与北美翻译工作室相关的学者的前提倾向声称，他们的方法并不是理论上的前提条件。这一章试着构想non-dit在作品中的现在时态，来解析那些潜在的假设，以及展示他们要怎样既不加强现存的文学华厦又不提供值得更深刻思考的反诉。通过这个方法，我希望来证明翻译工作室方法事实上可以两全其美。例如，同时加强，同时破坏。这因为方法必须生效双重的作用，对于正在进行的调查有着积极的作用。这调查不仅仅是调查翻译这个现象，也调查语言本身。

弗雷德里克. 威尔：翻译的悖论

在理查德的翻译作品很有可能成为翻译批评延伸的特征的时候，弗雷德里克威尔的文学翻译刚开始并不像理查德的作品那样，而是因为他介入到翻译中而使其作品有着很多的改变。威尔的翻译工作理论是有着很多美国工作坊模式的信徒的征兆。威尔首次在德州大学教古典的时候，和威廉爱喽史密斯一起创办了《阿里昂》杂志。后来到了1964年，因为他接受爱奥瓦大学翻译工作室的董事而调到翻译前线。1965年，他创办《微型美噶斯》杂志，为文学翻译做贡献。杂志每一刊都以不同国家的诗歌为中心。1966年，他的第一本理论文本《文学内而外》出版了。文本提出了一个关于命名，意义，和间接的建议性问题，

也就是翻译被视为命名、虚构和了解的形式。他的另一本书《石头上的小刀》在1973年出版，直接的处理翻译的实践性问题，也是他在爱奥瓦重述他工作室经验的其中一部分。

尽管，威尔早期的文本没有具体的阐述翻译中存在的问题，但是从他的文本中可以看到他对于某个相关性理论的推断。威尔提了理查德斯所没有提出的理论：他试着利用新的关键信念对近期的关键理念进行协调。威尔《文学由内而外》中的第一篇散文《从命名到虚构》同意了文学相对主义的理论。认为不同语言能构建独立的现实，认为任何特定的词组都不可能精确的确定下来。威尔对于基于相关一个普遍客观事实的翻译理论提出质疑。他认为，现实只能从我们给予它们名字中学习，也就是说，语言是现实的创造者。威尔使自己远离理论，而置于一个普遍主题或主旨的一个概念之上。这理论并不作为人类活动的象征。然而，威尔同时还认为，“自我的核心，努力的主旨是爱，”精髓的知识是有可能有着放松自己的力量，并把外界带入到现实中，“带入到意识的中心”。对于威尔来说，命名是人类活动的基础，没有能力命名也就仍然只是野蛮人。然而和认为，语言承担着我们的特征，我们的韵律，我们的欲望，还显露出我们内心中真正的自己，威尔继续地说：自我的努力也就是，不只只是口头上的播放，而是整个努力的一部分，努力把外界带入人类中。这种情况从自我的统一开始出现，这样的统一是核心运动的表达，自我，则是都承担着运

动的特征。每一种表达则是承担核心的特征。

作为反对一个可以在文化间互相传译的客观的外界现实，威尔认为人类经验和情感的中央共同核心可以战胜语言的不定本质并让“外界现实”成为焦点。我们把我们自己翻译成语言，命名不必给我们任何关于外界现实的见解，但是能帮我们更好的了解我们内心的自己。

这内心理解和知识的力量在第二篇散文《文学与知识》中有着更详细解释：理查德斯的影响到处都看到。根据威尔的解释来说，文学包含着真理和知识。原始文本的凝集的新重要原则是被采取。威尔认为文学作品深深的联合名义事件在自我中出现。文字组成文学作品，对于英镑来说也同样重要，英镑把威尔的整个都联合起来了，在某种意义上来说，是口头上的。在文学作品里，文字意义水平的“大多数或全部”威尔列出了五本字典，上下文，象征，释义，内心的听觉和视觉寓意，“都和而为一”。像理查德斯一样，威尔的议事日程是基本的教会说教，并不只是为了发展有能力的文学批评家，但是却为了一个更大更人性化的目标。根据威尔所说的，文学不仅给予我们权利去理解，而且，也给我们一个方法去理解更高一层的形而上学的权利。威尔清楚的阐明“这力量就是理解某件事情上我知识。”然而我们已经发现威尔对于我们去了解客观现实的能力起了怀疑，也包括修辞问

题，“知识能是什么，即使本质的世界或关于上帝除了理解他们的力量？”文学作品通过澄清我们所经历过的事实，无理的世界保护我们不受模型影响，作为一个相互混合的复杂空间，行为和特征。因此文学加深且丰富了我们的生活，同时给我们真正自己有个更好的理解。威尔在艾奥瓦大学的翻译工作室实践了之后，并阅读了庞德的作品之后，他重新复查了自己的翻译理论。虽然他的下一个理论文本《石头上的小刀》保留着形而上学的概念，包括心分散力量里的很多浪漫主义的爱情与人道主义信仰的概念。他的文本概念成为统一的相互联系的整体的一小部分；相反，这文本却被人们看作是与现实的相互交织，受使用，变化和解释变量所驱使。在《石头上的小刀》中，威尔把翻译当作他的理论的试验场，目标是很清晰的证实了威尔带入计划中的形而上学信念：

因为一个单一的理想文学体的存在，语言的可通译性是最坚定的试验场和试验场。对于这样一个体的想法，若是有任何意思，就会通过对一种语言与另一种文学的文学方程式的努力把自己来展现自己。

再一次，为了反对包括那些对于翻译能力持怀疑的人，包括那些质疑文艺性概念的人，以及那些找出指涉问题概念的人，威尔例举了萨特和米德的理论。虽然萨特和米德的理论中内心的自我缺少对于人类经验的统一核心的意识，但是各自都提到了威尔术语“无场地”和“社会结构”。通过翻译的文本，威尔试图驳斥“相对论”的论题，宣扬一个普遍的共识，也就是单一性理想文学体，从事实上实现互译性。然而，在投入文本的时候，威尔认为这不能保证原先的提前猜测，但能使他以一种方式来转变翻译概念。这样就可能成为现代理论的利益。

威尔的认识逻辑的变化在最后的散文《石头上的小刀》中是最明显的，称为自相矛盾的“忠诚的叛徒”，意大利人就称之为“翻译就是叛变”。简而言之，文章回顾了他在艾奥瓦大学的教学经验。在真实翻译实践的课程中已经变得很清晰，威尔所翻译的东西对于文本已变得不再重要，对于表达语言意思的经历更是如此。他发现自己正在用一种庞德这类人的理论。文化相对性论题在曾经是那么有问题，以至于需要重新打开它本身来得到人们的接受，不是反对实践而是用于平等性的现在部分。虽然语言是不定的，虽然我们没有机会了解具体语言背后的的意思，但是所有更多的原因是自由和值得信任的，这不是对于语言的所说而是对于语言的所做所为。作为“带过”的翻译的传统理念是受束缚的，并且导致了陷进“错误的平等”和“原始的版本”种类中去。威尔的宣言所代替的是一种途径，不是翻译文艺作品的意味，而是一种作品的精髓或是主旨，因为并没有翻译的正确方式。

Edward T. Hall and The History of Intercultural Communication: The United States and Japan

by Everett M. ROGERS William B. HART Yoshitaka MIIKE From the FSI to the Field of Intercultural Communication，despite the intellectual impacts of the paradigm developed at the

Foreign Service Institute, Hall “made no attempt to create a new academic field with a novel research tradition”(Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). While he promoted the ideas formulated at the FSI through his articles and books, like The Silent Language, Hall did not perceive of himself as founding an academic specialty. He continued to think of himself as an anthropologist, rather than as a communication scholar. Hall continues to hold this viewpoint. Nonetheless, Edward Hall founded intercultural communication, and The Silent Language was the founding document of the field. Hall laid the intellectual foundation upon which many others have built. These later scholars were not linguists, presumably because linguistics focuses on verbal communication, not nonverbal communication (Rogers and teinfatt, 1999). Why did the study of communication between people of different cultures come to be a sub-field of communication study, and not anthropology? Two possible explanations are:

(1) Hall did not actively promote the institutionalization of intercultural communication within anthropology, and (2) Hall lacked a following of Ph.D. protégés in anthropology.

Hall was a somewhat accidental founder of the new field of intercultural communication, and he did not foster its institutionalization in American universities (Rogers, 1994). However, Hall continued to conduct scholarly research in nonverbal communication (mainly in proxemics) during the era that he taught at the Illinois Institute of Technology (1963-1967) and at Northwestern University (1967-1977), and to write several important books about intercultural communication (Hall, 1966, 1976, and 1983). Nevertheless, a reading of Hall’s extensive correspondence in the University of Arizona archives shows that while he was an active intercultural communication researcher,

he did not see his role as that of establishing the field of intercultural communication in university departments of anthropology (or communication or any other field). Ph.D. students can play an important role in establishing and advancing a new field of study. Hall lacked a large number of Ph.D. students who followed in his direct footsteps. The FSI was not a degree-granting institution, and “The FSI students were an unpromising pool of recruits for a theory group.

《爱德华霍尔和他的跨文化交际的历史》：

美国和日本的由作家艾菲略特罗格威廉和耀西塔卡编写

从消防装置到跨文化交际的领域，尽管在国外服务协会的示例性发展有着智慧型的影响，霍尔的“没有试图和新型的研究传统来创造新的学术领域”。然而他促使这想法就会通过他的文章和书在消防装置中形成。就像《沉默的语言》一样。霍尔没有作为建立学院的专家的自我的意识。他继续把自己当作是人类学家，而不是交际学者。霍尔继续支持这一观点。

尽管如此，爱德华霍尔建立了跨文化交际学，《沉默的语言》就是这一领域的建立性文本。霍尔把知性基础基于很多其他已经建立起来的基础。这些后来的学者不是语言学家，大概因为语言学家注意口头交流，不是非语言交流，（罗格和斯蒂芬，1999）。为什么对于不同文化之间的交流的学习成为交流学习的附属领域，不是人类学家？两种可能性的解释就是：（1）霍尔在人类里没有积极的促进跨文化交际的制度化，（2）霍尔缺少一系列的人类语言学家的博士徒弟。

霍尔可以说跨文化交际的新领域的偶然创始人，他没有在美国大学培养制度化。（罗格，1994) 然而，霍尔继续管理非口头交流的学术性研究（主要在空间关系学）在时代期间，他在美国伊利诺理工大学（1963-1977），写了几本重要的关于跨文化交际的书，既然若此，霍尔在亚历桑那大学档案的精深的信件表明了当他作为活跃的文化间交际的研究者。他没有看见他在人类学家部门大学作为建立文化交际领域的角色。博士学生在建立与发展新的学习领域中扮演重要的角色。

霍尔缺少很多这样的学生来追随他直接的步伐。FSI 不是授予学院的学位，而是理论群没有前途的注册池。