메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
조재룡 (고려대)
저널정보
고려대학교 아세아문제연구원 아세아연구 아세아연구 통권 145호
발행연도
2011.9
수록면
9 - 40 (34page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
It is hard to define double-translation. Although it is an important topic considering its relation with practice of writing, predominantly, it has been viewed as negatively. However, double-translation has played an important role in creating the Korean modern literature identity. Except for Yim Wha, most authors of Korean literature did not study the relationship between Korean modern literature and double-translation. From its negative point of view, double-translation is nothing more than forging. However, it is practically impossible to translate Japanese directly which was translated from the works of Western literature. Even if the translation was conducted on the Japanese translation, it is reasonable to conclude that the Korean modern language has formed its basis through transformation and refraction in the double-translation process. Moreover, double-translation was a method that necessitated at the time. It was the best alternative way when Western literary works were not readily available. There are three reasons why most of the translation works were relying on double-translation during the period of Enlightenment to Liberalization. The first reason lies in the pressing need of enlightenment at the time. As a means of enlightenment, rather than mere translation it emphasized on spreading knowledge of the modern Western society. Secondly, the logic of the weak is applied. As LuXun points out, countries such as Korea and China were considered as relatively weak because they were either going through a time of enlightenment or revolution. Third is immanency. A time of enlightenment for Korea and revolutionary periods in China spared no room to consider for the method of translation as importing Western knowledge as quickly as possible was the foremost priority. Today the prospects of double-translation are different, because the historical situation is different. Double-translation is no more at the source of a complex, but instead it is recognized as the “mark of the translator’s efforts” (Kim Hyun). The fact that translation studies stress the need to consult previous translations in order to enhance one’s own translation, tells us that double-translation is no longer a taboo nor a mis-translation.

목차

Ⅰ. 중역 ‘일반론’에 관한 몇 가지 물음들
Ⅱ. 중역의 개념적 파장과 시기의 특수성이라는 딜레마
Ⅲ. 중역의 이율배반 ① : 한국문학사에서 배척되어온 중역
Ⅳ. 중역의 이율배반 ② : 단일한 곳으로 수렴되지 않는 중역의 파장
Ⅴ. 중역의 이율배반 ③ : 황단과 전환의 관점에서 보아야 하는 중역
Ⅵ. 폐쇄된 현실과 열린 가능성
Ⅶ. 중역의 세 가지 알리바이
Ⅷ. 결론을 대신하여
참고문헌
abstract

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-910-000710025