库恩科学哲学视阈下口译研究技术范式与技术转向之名实考辨  

Kuhn's Scientific-Philosophical Perspective on the Naming of Technological Paradigm and Technological Turn of Interpreting Studies

作　　者：赵奂 ZHAO Huan(School of English Studies ＆ Graduate School,Sichuan International Studies University,Chongqing 400031,China)

机构地区：[1]四川外国语大学英语学院/研究生院,重庆400031

出　　处：《山东外语教学》2018年第5期98-108,共11页Shandong Foreign Language Teaching

基　　金：2015年重庆市社科联一般项目"中国传统古典词汇口笔译研究"(项目编号:2015YBWX072)的阶段性成果;2015年四川外国语大学校级教改项目"以中国文化走出去为导向的汉英口译教学探讨"(项目编号:JY155605)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：有学者认为口译界已经出现了研究的"技术范式"和"技术转向",然而,这两种命名的合理性值得商榷。本文首先通过回归术语源文本《科学革命的结构》,获取"范式"和"转向"的准确定义;继而采用文本作者库恩(Kuhn)的历史主义科学哲学观,梳理当代口译研究中范式的形成过程和转向的促发因素,并考掘技术在其中发挥的作用;最后根据库恩的理论进行命名查辨,并得出结论:由于先在性哲学假设的缺失,"技术范式"这种命名不符合库恩对范式的界定,"技术转向"一说也未体现转向的科学哲学属性,因此不提倡使用。本研究对口译研究中术语命名的合理性有正本清源的意义。Some scholars purport the emergence of technological paradigm and technological turn in Interpreting Studies in spite of that those kinds of naming remain questionable. By means of a closereading of The Structure of Scientific Revolution, where paradigm and paradigm change/shift are originally from and defined, this paper combs through the existing paradigms of Interpreting Studies in the historical view observed by Kuhn, the author of the book, and discusses the role technology plays throughout the whole process of such paradigm changes, thereafter concludes that the absence of the priority of theoretical hypothesis denies the rationality of the naming of technological paradigm, meanwhile, the naming of technological turn does not reflect the scientific-philosophical attribute of paradigm change/shift. Therefore both are improper. This study helps clarify the name and nature of paradigm and paradigm change/shift in Interpreting Studies.

关 键 词：口译研究 范式 转向 库恩《科学革命的结构》 科学哲学 

分 类 号：H059[语言文字—语言学]