从理雅各英译《孟子》看散文风格的传译

详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文

英文题名：The Transfer of Prose Style——A Tentative study of James Legge's English Version of Mencius 作者：余敏 论文级别：硕士 学科专业名称：英语语言文学 学位年度：2001 导师：华先发 学科代码：050201 学位授予单位：华中师范大学 论文提交日期：2001-05-01

摘要

散文风格翻译是文学风格翻译的一部分。在文学风格可译性这个问题上，
    人们持有两种不同的观点：一种观点认为文学风格可译，其主要代表是亚历山
    大·泰特勒、尤金·奈达及刘重德。另一种观点认为由于英汉两种语言存在差
    异，因此文学风格是不可译的。
     笔者认为，就散文风格而言，如果将风格看作一个整体，散文风格是可译
    的，但是存在着一定的局限性。对此论点，本论文中举出了若干理由。其中，
    散文风格可译的主要原因是由于英汉语言之间有着相似性，这从语音、词汇、
    句法三个层面得到了论述；此外，英汉两语言之间的差异性又使得散文风格的
    传译受到一定的局限。因此，散文风格的可译性是限定在一定范围内的。
     为了进一步论证这一论点，本文以刘重德的翻译原则“切”为依据，以中
    国古典名著《孟子》及理雅各的英译本为样例，将原文与译文进行系统、全面
    的对比分析论证。这里选择“切”的原则是：一，亚历山大·泰特勒的“译文
    的风格和笔调应与原文一致”，以及尤金·奈达的“动态对等”理论都太理想，
    太完美而难以达到其要求；二，严复的原则“雅”所适用的范围太窄，它显然
    不适合非正式或口语化散文的翻译。三，“切”具有客观性和实用性。因此，
    笔者选用“切”这一原则作为评论散文风格翻译的标准。
     总的来说，《孟子》的风格是正式而且雄辩的。这主要表现在语音、词汇、
    句法三个层面。
     在语音层，原文的风格特征主要体现在节奏的平衡对称及押韵两方面。节
    奏的平衡对称指的是在节奏的运用上，前后两三句，或一个句子内的两、三个
    成分平衡对称。《孟子》中有许多句子节奏平衡对称，理雅各都进行了很好的
    传译。此外，《孟子》中也有不少押韵词，这使其语音优美，朗朗上口，因而
    更能打动读者。
     在词汇层，《孟子》的风格特征主要表现在单个动词及比喻等的运用上。
    由于单个动词简洁凝炼，因而它们常能表现正式而雄辩的语言风格。此外，《孟
    子》中还运用了大量的比喻来喻明事理。这些生动优美的比喻可使其说理由抽
    象复杂变得简单明了，因而很有说服力。
    
    
     在句法层，其风格特征则表现在句长及其结构、简略句、否定句、倒装句、
    引喻、对偶、顶真、排比、反复、设问句、渐进和突降等方面。首先，《盂子》
    中有许多长句及复杂句，它们充分体现了其正式的风格特征。其次，书中常在
    篇尾用简略句、否定句及设问勾结句，使其论证雄辩论有力。再次，大量运用
    典故也可使其论述更有说服力。《盂子》从《诗经》中共引用30次，从《书》
    中引用20次，并从其它许多书中引经据典，这使其说理更加雄辩有力。此外，
    一些修辞手法，如对偶、顶真、对比、反复、渐进和突降等都得到了很好的运
    用。
     对于这些风格特征，理雅各都忠实而姻熟地进行了传译。然而，由于英汉
    语言在以上三个层次都存在差异，因而理雅各对孟子风格的传译有着一定的局
    限性，这可由从原文及译文中选出的样例得到证明。
     理雅各在翻译《孟子》时主要采用了直译法，但在必要时也使用补充、意
    译及转换等方法使译文清楚明白。根据刘重德的翻译原则“切”，理雅各英译
    的《孟子》在风格上切合于原文，总体上是令人满意的，从而证实了“散文风
    格的可译性是有限的”这一论点是正确可行的。
Prose style translation is a part of literary style translation. On the question of
     the translatability of literary style, people hold two different viewpoints. One is that
     it抯 possible to translate literary style. Many foreign and Chinese translators and
    
     translation theoreticians have advocated their translation principles for this A
     possibility. Their chief representatives are Alexander F. Tytler, Eugene A. Nida and
    
     Liu Zhongde. The other viewpoint is that it抯 impossible to translate literary style,
     due to the differences between English and Chinese.
    
     So far as prose style is concerned, the author of this thesis believes that by
     taking style as a whole, it抯 possible to translate prose style but the translatability is
     limited to a certain degree. There are several reasons listed in this thesis for this
     argument. For the possibility of translating prose style, the main reasoi~ lies in the
     similarities between English and Chinese. They are illustrated at the phonological,
     lexical and syntactic levels. Nevertheless, the translatability of prose style is limited
     to a certain degree, as there are language differences between English and Chinese
     at these levels. These differences are clearly reflected between English and Chinese
     in customs. life style, ways of thinking which make difficult the translation of prose
     style. So the translatability of prose style is limited to some extent.
    
     In order to make this thesis more convincing and more acceptable, the author
     chooses the great classical Chinese work Mencius and its English version made by
     James Legge as a sample and makes a thorough and comprehensive contrastive
     study of the source text and the target text under the guidance of Liu Zhongde抯
     principle 搕抜J?closeness in style). Here are some reasons for the preference of this
     principle. First, Tytler抯 principle, 搕he style and manner should be of the same
     character with that of the original?and Eugene A. Nida抯 principle of 揹ynamic
     equivalence?are too ideal and too perfect to achieve. Second, Yan Eu抯 (~~)
     揺legance?is too narrow in domain and not suitable for the translation of informal
    
    
     ii
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     憕? MASTER S THESIS
    
    
    
     or colloquial prose. Third, 揷loseness?is the most objective and practical principle
     in analyzing the translation of prose style. Therefore, the author adopted the last
     principle in this paper.
    
     Generally, the style of Mencius is formal and eloquent, which is mainly
     reflected at the three different levels: phonology, lexicon and syntax.
    
     At the phonological level, the stylistic features of the source text are mainly
     revealed in the balance of rhythm and rhymed words. The balance of rhythm refers
     to the use of rhythm in which two or three sentences, or two or three phrases in a
     sentence are rhythmically balanced. This kind of rhythm may create a style of
     formality and eloquence and impress the readers a lot. In Mencius, there are
     numerous sentences that are balanced in rhythm. Besides, there are also many
     rhymed words which frequently appear in Mencius help create a kind of beauty in
     sound and impress the readers a lot.
    
     At the lexical level, the stylistic features of Mencius are also formal and
     eloquent, mainly shown by single verbs, metaphors, etc. As for single verbs,
     Mencius used many to create formal and eloquent style, for they are concise and
     compact. Besides, Mencius used quite a lot of metaphors

引文

Crystal,D.,and Davy,D.Investigating English style.Longman Group Ltd.,1969.
    Cuddon, J.A A Dictionary of Literary Terms. Chatham: W&J Mackay Limited,1979.
    Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: Helen Hemingway Publisher, 1993.
    Leech, G.N., and M. Short. Style in Fiction Longman Groups Ltd., 1981.
    Legge, Helen E. James Legge, Missionary and Scholar. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1905.
    Legge, James. Confucianism in Relation to Christianity. Kelly and Walsh, 1877.
    Levenson, Joseph R. Confucian China and its Modern Fate. Berkeley: University of California Pr., 1968.
    Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation, Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. 1981.
    Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall International(UK) Ltd., 1988.
    Nida, E.A Language Structure and Translation Stanford: Stanford University Press,1975.
    Paper, Jordan D. Guide to Chinese Prose. G. K. Hall & Co., 1984.
    Raffel, Burton. The Art of Translating Prose. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.
    Ride, Lindasy. "Biographical Notes" in The Chinese Classics (Vol. 1):HongKongUniversity Press, 1960.
    Savory, Theodore. The Art of Translation. London: Jonathan Cape, Thirty BodfordSquare, 1957.
    陈宏薇，《汉英翻译基础》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1998。
    董洪利，《孟子研究》，南京：江苏古藉出版社，1997。
    金隄，《等效翻译探索》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1998。
    李定坤，《汉英辞格对比与翻译》，武汉：华中师范大学出版社，1994。
    
    
    李瑞华，《英汉语言文化对比研究》，上海：教育出版社，1996。
    理雅各原译，刘重德、罗志野校注，《汉英四书》长沙：湖南出版社，1992。
    刘重德，《文学翻译十讲》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1991。
    刘鄂培，《孟子大传》，北京：清华大学出版社，1997。
    刘景龙，《汉语文言语法》，北京：中华书局，1994。
    刘宓庆，《当代翻译理论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1999。
    秦秀白，《英语文体学概论》，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1986。
    王佐良，《英语文体学引论》上海：外语教育与研究出版社，1987。
    杨伯峻，《孟子导读》，成都：巴蜀出版社，1987。
    杨自俭，《翻译新论》，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1994。
    赵吉惠，《中国先秦思想史》，西安：陕西人民出版社，1988。
    赵建中，《文章体裁学》，南京大学出版社，1991。
    赵甄陶英译，《孟子》，山东友谊出版社，1998。
    朱熹，《四书集注》，长沙：岳麓出版社，1985。
    谭思健，“论《孟子》的比喻”，《江西教育学院学报》，1993年第3期。
    《现代汉语词典》，北京：商务印书馆，1996。