The Reconstruction of Translator's Identity under the Notion of "Fusion of Horizons"

Abstract

Traditional studies were based on three fundamental theories, namely, the principle of faithfulness, the authority of the author and the binary opposition relations between the author and the translator as well as between the original text and the translated version. Therefore, the identity of the translator was defined as the servant, that is, servant of two masters, and as the invisible man. In the 1980s, the emergence of the turn opened up a new perspective and a broader for studies. Based on the retrospect of the translator's identity in traditional theories, this paper is designed to analyze the reconstruction of the translator's identity under the notion of of in Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. Index Terms - the translator's identity, the reconstruction, fusion of horizons 1. Introduction Translation is an activity with a long history of several thousand years, whose contribution is absolutely obvious. However, the status of translators has not got the deserved attraction. There are indeed scholars dealing with the translators' status, but no systematical theory has been achieved. The history of the studies shows that the question of the translator is an eternal topic in translation. But because of the historical limitation, the width and depth of discussion about the translator are inadequate. Moreover, the identity of the translator has been reduced to a lower position because the emphasis is only put on the translated text and the comparison between the original text and its translated text. And in the field of study both at home and abroad, there have not existed quite systematic and adequate researches into the translator's identity under the notions of of and horizon of expectations. Thus it is quite necessary to reconstruct the translator's identity by employing the notion of of horizons. 2. The TRANSLATOR'S Position in the Traditional Translation Theories In the traditional studies, the translator's position had nearly been reduced to ignorance, whose identity had been regarded as servant serving two masters. The author had the absolutely full authority, while the translator was merely his loyal translation machine. Moreover, the early reception theory and the reader response criticism had strongly emphasized the role of the reader, holding that it was the reader who decided the meaning of the text and that the translator was inevitably doomed to serve the reader. As a matter of fact, what mentioned above was not in accordance with the translators' actual subjectivity. Being the reader, the translator was supposed to mobilize his own literary abilities such as aesthetic judgment, emotion, imagination, etc. to interpret the blank points in the original-language texts; being the interpreter, he had the needs to exert his abilities of literary appreciation and literary criticism, to explore the ideological connotation and the aesthetic implication of the works, and to analyse the literary values and the social significance of the works. Under the traditional cultural notions, author- centeredness and text-centeredness lay in authoritative positions. Either trans1ation theories or criticism are abided by the principle of absolute faithfulness to the author and the original text. Researchers saw as a low- status occupation. Thus, they neglected the active role played by the translator, whose roles were considered as of importance.