지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper is focused on interpreting the antithetic attitude shown by colonial Korean intellectuals in second-hand translation from Japanese translation ? according to whether to be the modern thought or to be literature. The implication in this phenomenon will be analyzed through instances of The Genesis, a prominent Korean journal of colonial age.
In The Genesis, the fact that European literature of Korean translation was a second-hand one(retranslation) from Japanese version of European original was completely ignored and hidden, while it was recognized ? in thoughts and ideologies ? to be a second-hand translation via Japanese intermediate and to refer to its originality. This intention to suggest as if Korean version of literary pieces were a first-hand translation of European original seems to be a unique result created by the particular establishing process of modern subject in colonial Korea. In other words, literature had a special status representing the modernity under the situation prohibited to argue modern thoughts and ideologies that could probably lead to reality criticism in colonial Korea.
Therefore, a concept was needed to give an impression as if the literature translated into Korean language were a fruit of direct communication with Western Europe, without Japanese intermediate. It was because, without conscious denial of the retranslation process via Japanese language, it might be impossible to realize Korean modern identity, a modernization led by literature.
Meanwhile, this psychological tendency to deny being retranslation via Japanese translation caused a condition to make the two types of literary translation different things respectively ? Korean version and Japanese version. If it were specified on the Korean edition to be a second-hand translation of Japanese version, the drop in value as literary commodities might have been unavoidable, due to being regarded just as an imitator of Japanese translation. The status deterioration of literature in Korean language was a serious issue that could be never accepted for the Korean publishing market which depended mainly on literary pieces.
It is presumed, this deep psychology under such circumstances was the very reason why the fact ? being a retranslation from Japanese version of European literature ? should have been concealed.
In The Genesis, the fact that European literature of Korean translation was a second-hand one(retranslation) from Japanese version of European original was completely ignored and hidden, while it was recognized ? in thoughts and ideologies ? to be a second-hand translation via Japanese intermediate and to refer to its originality. This intention to suggest as if Korean version of literary pieces were a first-hand translation of European original seems to be a unique result created by the particular establishing process of modern subject in colonial Korea. In other words, literature had a special status representing the modernity under the situation prohibited to argue modern thoughts and ideologies that could probably lead to reality criticism in colonial Korea.
Therefore, a concept was needed to give an impression as if the literature translated into Korean language were a fruit of direct communication with Western Europe, without Japanese intermediate. It was because, without conscious denial of the retranslation process via Japanese language, it might be impossible to realize Korean modern identity, a modernization led by literature.
Meanwhile, this psychological tendency to deny being retranslation via Japanese translation caused a condition to make the two types of literary translation different things respectively ? Korean version and Japanese version. If it were specified on the Korean edition to be a second-hand translation of Japanese version, the drop in value as literary commodities might have been unavoidable, due to being regarded just as an imitator of Japanese translation. The status deterioration of literature in Korean language was a serious issue that could be never accepted for the Korean publishing market which depended mainly on literary pieces.
It is presumed, this deep psychology under such circumstances was the very reason why the fact ? being a retranslation from Japanese version of European literature ? should have been concealed.
목차
Ⅰ. 법역과 번역
Ⅱ. 문역의 실재성
Ⅲ. 식민지 검열과 번역의 맥락
Ⅳ. 실천의 번역
참고문헌
abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
한국근대소설 형성 동인으로서의 번역ㆍ번안 : 근대초기 번역ㆍ번안소설의 전개 양상을 중심으로
강현조
한국근대문학연구
2012
.10
식민지 시기 일본에서 간행한 한국어 출판물 : ‘法域’과 식민지 검열의 문제
한기형
근대서지
2010
.03
중역(重譯)의 인식론 : 그 모든 중역들의 중역과 근대 한국어
조재룡
아세아연구
2011
.09
1950년대 문화검열과 매체 그리고 문학
이봉범
한국현대문학회 학술발표회자료집
2009
.10
근대매체와 식민지 민간학술사회의 형성 : 근대문학의 지식사적 위상에 대한 시론
한기형
한국현대문학회 학술발표회자료집
2009
.10
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-910-001381424