번역사를 바라보는 한 관점: 앙리 메쇼닉(H. Meschonnic)의 경우

Abstract

Since the attempts in Pour la Potique II, H. Meschonnic has carried out the basic reflection on the stakes of translation in the creative way. Unlike the previous methods of interpretation which are simple, thus considered as a copy, an imitation and a secondary text, his perspective on translation has brought the theories of languages into play. That is why the thoughts of Meschonnic on translation have revealed the historical implications of translation. Meschonnic has used definite, specific and original interpretation on translation stretched from the era of Renaissance, the middle age, until today. Therefore Meschonnic’s contribution has been started in XVIe century. The theories of translation and the characteristics of its practice were very well-known during that time thanks to the work of Chomarat, Worth, Meerhof, and several studies related to the history (or historys) of translation. In addition, the development of those theories of translation could not be going without the undeniable contribution of Etienne Dolet as well as of Du Bellay. However, the reflection on translation of the French Renaissance did not make it possible to release coherent and homogeneous overall concept. That was rather than gigantic mass of translations of old texts produced during this period. The writer-translators such as Dolet and Du Bellay inter alia, saw the translation as effective means to elevate the state of French as a literary language on the same level as Latin and Greek. As Meschonnic said, however, their significances are far beyond this level. They are conscious of proposing some concepts called “le nombre oratoire”(the oratorical number) (Dolet) which implies the methods of translation by the rhythm and the prosody in the dimension of the discourse, not in the langue(within the meaning of Saussure) and the affinity (Du Bellay). While crossing the dichotomic frontier of translation of the direction and the literal translation, they also open the new way of translation toward the discourse. In other words, Meschonnic crosses any history of translation freely. Indeed, the question of the affinity concerning the manner of translating can be offset immediately by the dualistic method of translation. In this direction, we can say the reflection on the literature and the development of the manner of translation are inseparably and massively bound and interrelated. Hence, the role of translation, that of literature in particular, dosen't simply make us turn towards a only formal respect of the origin texts but rather become translators and theorists of translation trying to make flash back to the specificity of writing in the discourse.