从目的论视角看辜鸿铭《论语》译本中的译者主体性
|
摘要
翻译是由人所从事并由人所推动的活动。译者作为翻译活动中最活跃的主体因素,在翻译研究中却长期遭到忽视。直到20世纪70年代,随着“文化转向”的出现,极大地开拓了翻译研究的视野,译者主体及其主体性的研究也成为译界研究的热点问题之一。其中目的论的出现,为译者主体性研究提供了理论声援。目的论认为译者要根据翻译目的采取相应的翻译策略和方法来完成翻译活动。这表明翻译目的在很大程度上决定了译者主体性的发挥。近些年来国内外翻译研究者从不同角度对译者主体性进行了宏观的分析与定位,而忽视了从微观个案入手,通过某一翻译家的实践对译者主体性做具体的分析。只有将个案分析与宏观理论相结合才能更好的推动译者主体性理论的发展。
作为驰名中外的学者和翻译家,辜鸿铭为了向西方介绍中国传统文化,着手把中国古代儒家经典《论语》、《中庸》、《大学》翻译成英文。辜鸿铭借助西方思想诠释中国文化,其译文获得了很好的接受效果,在西方世界产生了相当重要的影响,这正是他充分发挥主观能动性的结果。本文旨在通过对辜鸿铭《论语》译本的研究从宏观和微观两个层面探讨译者主体性是如何体现的。宏观上则从译者对翻译文本,翻译策略的选择,翻译目的这三个方面分析其主体性是如何产生影响的。微观上则从译者采用何种具体的翻译方法来表达儒家思想和文化。
然而,译者主体性是主观能动性和受动性辩证统一。译者在充分发挥发挥译者主体性的同时,不可避免的受到诸多因素的制约。本文也将针对译者的受动性展开分析,并试图就如何合理地发挥译者的主观能动性以处理译者主体性的制约因素而提出一些有用的建议。
Translation is a human activity which is promoted by human beings. As the most dynamic subjective factor in translation, the translator has long been ignored in translation studies. With the advent of“culture turn”in 1970s, it has greatly broadened the scope of translation studies in which the studies on the translator and translators’subjectivity become one of the hot topics. Skopos theory has provided theoretical basis for the study of translator’s subjectivity. Skopos theory holds that the translator will adopt adequate translation strategy and methods to fulfill translation activity according to translation purpose. It indicates that translation purpose greatly determines the display of translator’s subjectivity. In recent years researchers at home and abroad have made macro theoretical analysis and orientation on translator’s subjectivity from different perspectives. However, they seem to overlook micro studies on a specific translator’s practice. Only combine case studies with macro theory can we better push forward the development of translator’s subjectivity.
As a famous scholar and translator, Ku Hungming set about translating Chinese Confucian classics, such as Lunyu, Zhongyong, Daxue into English so that he could disseminate Chinese culture to the West. Ku Hungming’s versions have widely accepted since he interpreted Chinese culture with the help of western philosophy, thus having exerted a significant influence in the western world. All these may thank to his full play of subjective initiative. So this thesis aims at exploring Ku Hungming’s subjectivity displayed in translation of Lunyu at both macro and micro level. At macro level, the writer will focus on factors beyond translation, such as translation purpose, the choice of the source text and translation strategy while at micro level, the writer will investigate that the translator adopt what translation methods to express Confucian thoughts and culture.
Translator’s subjectivity consists of subjective initiative and passivity. The translator is inevitably restricted by various factors in display of his\her subjectivity. Therefore, this thesis will discuss the translator’s subjective initiative and passivity and try to put forward some useful suggestions on how to display translator’s subjective initiative in an appropriate way as well as deal with constraints on translator’s subjectivity.
作为驰名中外的学者和翻译家,辜鸿铭为了向西方介绍中国传统文化,着手把中国古代儒家经典《论语》、《中庸》、《大学》翻译成英文。辜鸿铭借助西方思想诠释中国文化,其译文获得了很好的接受效果,在西方世界产生了相当重要的影响,这正是他充分发挥主观能动性的结果。本文旨在通过对辜鸿铭《论语》译本的研究从宏观和微观两个层面探讨译者主体性是如何体现的。宏观上则从译者对翻译文本,翻译策略的选择,翻译目的这三个方面分析其主体性是如何产生影响的。微观上则从译者采用何种具体的翻译方法来表达儒家思想和文化。
然而,译者主体性是主观能动性和受动性辩证统一。译者在充分发挥发挥译者主体性的同时,不可避免的受到诸多因素的制约。本文也将针对译者的受动性展开分析,并试图就如何合理地发挥译者的主观能动性以处理译者主体性的制约因素而提出一些有用的建议。
Translation is a human activity which is promoted by human beings. As the most dynamic subjective factor in translation, the translator has long been ignored in translation studies. With the advent of“culture turn”in 1970s, it has greatly broadened the scope of translation studies in which the studies on the translator and translators’subjectivity become one of the hot topics. Skopos theory has provided theoretical basis for the study of translator’s subjectivity. Skopos theory holds that the translator will adopt adequate translation strategy and methods to fulfill translation activity according to translation purpose. It indicates that translation purpose greatly determines the display of translator’s subjectivity. In recent years researchers at home and abroad have made macro theoretical analysis and orientation on translator’s subjectivity from different perspectives. However, they seem to overlook micro studies on a specific translator’s practice. Only combine case studies with macro theory can we better push forward the development of translator’s subjectivity.
As a famous scholar and translator, Ku Hungming set about translating Chinese Confucian classics, such as Lunyu, Zhongyong, Daxue into English so that he could disseminate Chinese culture to the West. Ku Hungming’s versions have widely accepted since he interpreted Chinese culture with the help of western philosophy, thus having exerted a significant influence in the western world. All these may thank to his full play of subjective initiative. So this thesis aims at exploring Ku Hungming’s subjectivity displayed in translation of Lunyu at both macro and micro level. At macro level, the writer will focus on factors beyond translation, such as translation purpose, the choice of the source text and translation strategy while at micro level, the writer will investigate that the translator adopt what translation methods to express Confucian thoughts and culture.
Translator’s subjectivity consists of subjective initiative and passivity. The translator is inevitably restricted by various factors in display of his\her subjectivity. Therefore, this thesis will discuss the translator’s subjective initiative and passivity and try to put forward some useful suggestions on how to display translator’s subjective initiative in an appropriate way as well as deal with constraints on translator’s subjectivity.
引文
Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Bassnet, Susan &Lefevere,Andre. Constructing Culture: Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Bassnet, Susan & Lefevere Andre. The Meek or the Mighty: Reappraising the Role of the Translator [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 2007.
Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary translation theories [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Ku Hungming. The Discourse and Sayings of Confucius [M]. Shanghai: Kelley and Walsh Ltd, 1898.
Ku Hungming. The Spirit of the Chinese People [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004.
Lefevere, Andre. Translation, Rewriting, and the manipulation of Literary Frame [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Lefevere. Andre. Construction Culture: Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1992.
Munday Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Newmark, Peter Approaches to Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nida, Eugene A. Language, Culture and Translating [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nida, Eugene A & Taber, Charles R The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Nord, Christiane. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Liao Qiyi, Contemporary Translation Studies in the Western World [C]. Sichuan International Studies University, 2002.
Robinson, Douglas. Who Translates? Translator Subjectivities beyond Reason [M]. New York: State University of New York Press, 2001.
Robinson, Douglas. The Translator’s Turn [M]. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Shuttleworth, Mark&Cowie Moria. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation [M]. Shanghai:
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
蔡新乐.《翻译的本体论研究》[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2005。
陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].《中国翻译》,2004(2):6。
陈大亮.翻译研究:从主体性向主体间性转向[J].《中国翻译》,2005(2)。
陈福康.《中国译学理论史稿》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
段峰.《文化视野下文学翻译主体性研究》[M].成都:四川大学出版社,2008。
方梦之.《译学辞典》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004。
郭著章.《翻译名家研究》[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999。
葛校琴.《后现代语境下的译者主体性研究》[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006。
黄兴涛.《文化怪杰辜鸿铭》[M].北京:中华书局,1995。
黄兴涛.《辜鸿铭文集》[C]海口:海南出版社,1996。
胡牧.主体性、主体间性抑或总体性——对现阶段翻译主体性研究的思考[J].《外国语》,2006(6)。
胡庚申.《翻译适应选择论》[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004。
侯林平、姜泗平.我国近十年来译者主体性研究的回顾与反思[J].《山东科技大学学报》,2006(3)。
孔庆茂.《辜鸿铭评传》[M].南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1996。
孔丘著.杨伯峻今译.刘殿爵英译.《论语》:汉英对照.北京:中华书局,2008。
李蕾.从译者主体性角度分析林语堂译作《浮生六记》[D],2009。
屠国元、朱献珑.译者主体性:阐释学的阐释[J].《中国翻译》,2003(6)。
吴迪龙.译者主体性之哲学思辨[J].《长沙理工大学学报》,2008(1)。
吴波.《论译者的主体性》[M].北京:外文出版社,2006。
王玉樑.论主体性的基本内涵与特点[J].《天府新论》,1995(6):82。
王辉.辜鸿铭英译儒经的文化用心——兼评王国维“书辜氏汤生英译《中庸》后”[J].《外国语言文学》,2006(3)。
谢天振.《译介学》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
许钧.《翻译思考录》[C]武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998。
许钧.《翻译论》[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003。
许钧.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].《中国翻译》,2003(1)。
许钧.文字·文学·文化——《红与黑》汉译研究[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1996。
许钧.论翻译之选择[J].《外国语》,2002(1):62-63。
杨武能.再谈文学翻译主体[J].《中国翻译》,2003(3)。
袁莉.也谈文学翻译之主体意识[J].《中国翻译》,1996(3)。
袁莉.关于翻译主体研究的构想,张柏然、许钧,(编)《面向21世纪的译学研究》,北京:商务印书馆,2002。
査明建、田雨.译者主体性—从译者文化地位的边缘谈起[J].《中国翻译》,2003(1)。
仲伟合、周静.译者的极限与底线——试论译者主体性与译者的天职[J].《外语与外语教学》2006(7)。
张小波.关于理雅各和辜鸿铭《论语》翻译的对比研究[J].《株洲工学院学报》2000(4):38。
吴志芳、邱棠.译者主体性的发挥——制约中的能动[J].《上海翻译》(2)2007。
Bassnet, Susan &Lefevere,Andre. Constructing Culture: Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Bassnet, Susan & Lefevere Andre. The Meek or the Mighty: Reappraising the Role of the Translator [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 2007.
Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary translation theories [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Ku Hungming. The Discourse and Sayings of Confucius [M]. Shanghai: Kelley and Walsh Ltd, 1898.
Ku Hungming. The Spirit of the Chinese People [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004.
Lefevere, Andre. Translation, Rewriting, and the manipulation of Literary Frame [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Lefevere. Andre. Construction Culture: Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1992.
Munday Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Newmark, Peter Approaches to Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nida, Eugene A. Language, Culture and Translating [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nida, Eugene A & Taber, Charles R The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Nord, Christiane. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Liao Qiyi, Contemporary Translation Studies in the Western World [C]. Sichuan International Studies University, 2002.
Robinson, Douglas. Who Translates? Translator Subjectivities beyond Reason [M]. New York: State University of New York Press, 2001.
Robinson, Douglas. The Translator’s Turn [M]. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Shuttleworth, Mark&Cowie Moria. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation [M]. Shanghai:
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
蔡新乐.《翻译的本体论研究》[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2005。
陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].《中国翻译》,2004(2):6。
陈大亮.翻译研究:从主体性向主体间性转向[J].《中国翻译》,2005(2)。
陈福康.《中国译学理论史稿》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
段峰.《文化视野下文学翻译主体性研究》[M].成都:四川大学出版社,2008。
方梦之.《译学辞典》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004。
郭著章.《翻译名家研究》[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999。
葛校琴.《后现代语境下的译者主体性研究》[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006。
黄兴涛.《文化怪杰辜鸿铭》[M].北京:中华书局,1995。
黄兴涛.《辜鸿铭文集》[C]海口:海南出版社,1996。
胡牧.主体性、主体间性抑或总体性——对现阶段翻译主体性研究的思考[J].《外国语》,2006(6)。
胡庚申.《翻译适应选择论》[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004。
侯林平、姜泗平.我国近十年来译者主体性研究的回顾与反思[J].《山东科技大学学报》,2006(3)。
孔庆茂.《辜鸿铭评传》[M].南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1996。
孔丘著.杨伯峻今译.刘殿爵英译.《论语》:汉英对照.北京:中华书局,2008。
李蕾.从译者主体性角度分析林语堂译作《浮生六记》[D],2009。
屠国元、朱献珑.译者主体性:阐释学的阐释[J].《中国翻译》,2003(6)。
吴迪龙.译者主体性之哲学思辨[J].《长沙理工大学学报》,2008(1)。
吴波.《论译者的主体性》[M].北京:外文出版社,2006。
王玉樑.论主体性的基本内涵与特点[J].《天府新论》,1995(6):82。
王辉.辜鸿铭英译儒经的文化用心——兼评王国维“书辜氏汤生英译《中庸》后”[J].《外国语言文学》,2006(3)。
谢天振.《译介学》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
许钧.《翻译思考录》[C]武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998。
许钧.《翻译论》[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003。
许钧.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].《中国翻译》,2003(1)。
许钧.文字·文学·文化——《红与黑》汉译研究[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1996。
许钧.论翻译之选择[J].《外国语》,2002(1):62-63。
杨武能.再谈文学翻译主体[J].《中国翻译》,2003(3)。
袁莉.也谈文学翻译之主体意识[J].《中国翻译》,1996(3)。
袁莉.关于翻译主体研究的构想,张柏然、许钧,(编)《面向21世纪的译学研究》,北京:商务印书馆,2002。
査明建、田雨.译者主体性—从译者文化地位的边缘谈起[J].《中国翻译》,2003(1)。
仲伟合、周静.译者的极限与底线——试论译者主体性与译者的天职[J].《外语与外语教学》2006(7)。
张小波.关于理雅各和辜鸿铭《论语》翻译的对比研究[J].《株洲工学院学报》2000(4):38。
吴志芳、邱棠.译者主体性的发挥——制约中的能动[J].《上海翻译》(2)2007。