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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2018.12
- 수록면
- 151 - 160 (10page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
There is a variety of opinions about the first translation activities within the Turkic Empire. It is widely believed that some Buddhist sutras were translated into the Turkic language in the period of Taspar Qagan (572-581). This theory is based on certain arguments: Some Turks practiced Buddhism, Buddhist monks translated sutras in the center of the Turkic Empire, Taspar brought sutras from China and had them translated, and the monarch of Northern Qi had a sutra translated and sent to Taspar. However, in my opinion, these arguments lack credibility. This article, which is based on primary Chinese sources, will question the likelihood of such translation activities having occurred.
Some Chinese records for these claims exist: Da Tang Nei Dian Lu (大唐內典錄) and Xu Gao Seng Chuan (續高僧傳) by the Buddhist monk Jinagupta and the records of Hui Lin in Sui Shu (隋書) and Wen Xian Tong Kao (文獻通考). These are known as “primary sources.” Secondary sources, namely contemporary history and language studies, such as those in books and articles, must be based on primary sources. It can be seen that claims relating to the first Turkic translation activities at the time of Taspar are mainly derived from secondary sources, and that the arguments in these secondary sources vary. Sometimes researchers make suppositions on the existence of information that is not referred to in primary sources. However, this is not normal practice. If a researcher relies on unknowns for the evidence of information existing, it can cause false information, ideas and anachronisms to be created.
It is important that primary sources, such as the Chinese sources mentioned above, be translated correctly in language and history studies. If only a word is mistranslated, very different results may occur. Mistranslating or misinterpreting a primary source allows conclusions to be reached that are not supported by dissemination of information from primary sources. This can mislead experts and result in information that is not correct being considered as being true.
As well as helping to prevent such misinterpretations occurring, another aim of this paper is to question the interpretations of the first Turkic translations in contemporary studies on history and language. The origin of such assessments will be explored and the validity of that information will be examined.
Some Chinese records for these claims exist: Da Tang Nei Dian Lu (大唐內典錄) and Xu Gao Seng Chuan (續高僧傳) by the Buddhist monk Jinagupta and the records of Hui Lin in Sui Shu (隋書) and Wen Xian Tong Kao (文獻通考). These are known as “primary sources.” Secondary sources, namely contemporary history and language studies, such as those in books and articles, must be based on primary sources. It can be seen that claims relating to the first Turkic translation activities at the time of Taspar are mainly derived from secondary sources, and that the arguments in these secondary sources vary. Sometimes researchers make suppositions on the existence of information that is not referred to in primary sources. However, this is not normal practice. If a researcher relies on unknowns for the evidence of information existing, it can cause false information, ideas and anachronisms to be created.
It is important that primary sources, such as the Chinese sources mentioned above, be translated correctly in language and history studies. If only a word is mistranslated, very different results may occur. Mistranslating or misinterpreting a primary source allows conclusions to be reached that are not supported by dissemination of information from primary sources. This can mislead experts and result in information that is not correct being considered as being true.
As well as helping to prevent such misinterpretations occurring, another aim of this paper is to question the interpretations of the first Turkic translations in contemporary studies on history and language. The origin of such assessments will be explored and the validity of that information will be examined.
목차
Introduction
Jinagupta
Hui Lin
Turkic Translation Decree of Northern Qi’s Ruler
Conclusion
References
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
奚与突厥关系考论
몽골학
2016 .01
-
『英華和譯字典』の日本語訳の出所について
일본연구
2015 .11
-
Some Chinese Words Misunderstood by the Jungar Tuvan Informants
중앙아시아연구
2021 .12
-
한국 문화콘텐츠 시장에서의 활용을 위한 튀르크 설화 발굴
중동문제연구
2018 .06
-
탈소비에트 투르크 공화국들의 문자개혁과 과제
한국이슬람학회 논총
2016 .01
-
试探韩中口笔译一体化教学及其实践方案
중국연구
2020 .01
-
이슬람화 이전 투르크 구비문학의 특징과 갈래분류에 관한 연구
한국이슬람학회 논총
2020 .01
-
Challenges of Translating Animal Metaphors from English to Kiswahili: A Comparative Analysis of Google Translate and Human Translators in Shakespeare’s Play
Asian Journal of African Studies
2022 .08
-
Analysis of Cultural Element Translation Strategies in Korean-Malay Language Creative Text
동남아연구
2019 .01
-
터키 튀르크 민속 출생의례에 대한 고찰 -산전속(産前俗)과 산후속(産後俗), 작명민속을 중심으로-
지중해지역연구
2018 .01
-
출처 회상 조건이 출처 감찰과 억제적 통제, 작업 기억 간의 관계에 미치는영향
아동학회지
2017 .04
-
알타이 투르크족의 카이치 전통 연구
한국중동학회논총
2016 .01
-
탈식민주의 ‘문화번역’의 담론적 실천－유미리의 『8월の果て』를 중심으로－
일본언어문화
2015 .01
-
日本古典文学の韓国語訳における諸問題
일본언어문화
2023 .06
-
중국 대학 한국어 학습자의 기계번역 사용 경험 및 인식 연구
인문사회 21
2022 .08
-
투르크 문화에 나타난 물의 원형적 심상
중동문제연구
2019 .01
-
한국어 번역을 위한 문화소의 기계번역 연구 : 중국 외교연설문 번역의 정확도 평가를 중심으로
현대사회와다문화
2018 .12
-
러시아 내 튀르크계 공화국의 민족어 교육: 발전과정 및 한계
러시아연구
2017 .01
-
번역과 문화, 번역교육
전남대학교 글로벌디아스포라연구소 국제학술회의
2016 .12
-
Needs Analysis for the Directions of Improving the Undergraduate Translation Curriculum in Arab Universities with a Korean Language Major
인문사회 21
2022 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2020-916-001529856