从《在路上》的两个译本中看翻译的操控
摘要
二十世纪七十年代,文学翻译研究领域中出现了一场被称为“文化转向”的变革。这场“文化转向”主张把翻译研究置于更为广阔的文化语境之中,关注影响和制约译者在翻译过程中所作出的各种选择的政治,历史,文化等外部因素,对于揭示翻译活动的规律和丰富翻译理论的研究具有重要的意义。比利时比较文学学者和翻译理论家安德鲁·勒费维尔是这一转向中的领军人物,最具代表性的就是他的翻译三要素理论:翻译是对原文的重写,它始终都受到三种因素的操纵:诗学观,译者或当代的意识形态和赞助人。
在过去的十几年里,人们已经运用勒费维尔的三要素理论分析了相当多的文学作品的译本,揭示了这些文学作品在翻译过程受到的三种要素的操控。但是,这些研究多数都局限于对某一单一译本的分析,而运用三要素理论对同一部文学作品的不同译本的比较研究相对较少,尤其是对在同种目的语中不同译本生成的原因的研究更是少之又少。
为了对同一文学作品在相同目的语内产生不同译本的原因进行更深入的研究,本文利用勒费维尔的三要素理论对文楚安和王永年分别翻译的《在路上》的两个中文译本进行了对比研究,结果表明:尽管文楚安和王永年在翻译《在路上》时都在着力再现原著的文化艺术价值,但由于他们各自受到不同的诗学观,意识形态和赞助人的操控,使得他们在翻译策略的选择和运用上呈现出较大的不同,最终产生出风格迥异的翻译文本,从而为读者提供了更为理智客观的欣赏依据。
In 70s' of the 20~(th) century,there appeared a revolution called "culture turning" in the field of literary translation studies which put translation studies in much broader culture context and focused on the outer factors like politics,history and culture which influence and restrict various choices made by the translator during his translating process.The revolution was significant in revealing rules of translating activities and enriching studies on translation theories.In this turning,the Belgian scholar on comparative literature and translation theories Andre Lefevere,was the pioneer.His most representative theory was the "three principles" theory:translating is the rewriting of the original text;it is manipulated by three factors all the time:poetics,ideology and patronage.
Over the past decade years,people had used this theory to analyze translations of a great number of literary works,and revealed the manipulations exerted by the three factors during the translating process.However,most studies are restricted in the analysis on only one translating version of one literary work.The studies which use his theory to compare different translating versions of one literary work are less,and the studies on finding out the reason of producing different translating versions in the same target language are particular less.
In order to find out the reason for the generation of different translating versions derive from the same literary work in the same target language,this article undertook a comparative study on the two translating versions of On the Road by using Lefevere's "three principles" theory.The analysis shows that the two translating versions are so different in style because the two translators choose and use quite different translating strategies under the control of different poetics,ideologies and patronages,though they both try their best to reproduce the culture value of the original text.By doing this,this article may offer readers more sensible way to appreciate the two versions.
在过去的十几年里,人们已经运用勒费维尔的三要素理论分析了相当多的文学作品的译本,揭示了这些文学作品在翻译过程受到的三种要素的操控。但是,这些研究多数都局限于对某一单一译本的分析,而运用三要素理论对同一部文学作品的不同译本的比较研究相对较少,尤其是对在同种目的语中不同译本生成的原因的研究更是少之又少。
为了对同一文学作品在相同目的语内产生不同译本的原因进行更深入的研究,本文利用勒费维尔的三要素理论对文楚安和王永年分别翻译的《在路上》的两个中文译本进行了对比研究,结果表明:尽管文楚安和王永年在翻译《在路上》时都在着力再现原著的文化艺术价值,但由于他们各自受到不同的诗学观,意识形态和赞助人的操控,使得他们在翻译策略的选择和运用上呈现出较大的不同,最终产生出风格迥异的翻译文本,从而为读者提供了更为理智客观的欣赏依据。
In 70s' of the 20~(th) century,there appeared a revolution called "culture turning" in the field of literary translation studies which put translation studies in much broader culture context and focused on the outer factors like politics,history and culture which influence and restrict various choices made by the translator during his translating process.The revolution was significant in revealing rules of translating activities and enriching studies on translation theories.In this turning,the Belgian scholar on comparative literature and translation theories Andre Lefevere,was the pioneer.His most representative theory was the "three principles" theory:translating is the rewriting of the original text;it is manipulated by three factors all the time:poetics,ideology and patronage.
Over the past decade years,people had used this theory to analyze translations of a great number of literary works,and revealed the manipulations exerted by the three factors during the translating process.However,most studies are restricted in the analysis on only one translating version of one literary work.The studies which use his theory to compare different translating versions of one literary work are less,and the studies on finding out the reason of producing different translating versions in the same target language are particular less.
In order to find out the reason for the generation of different translating versions derive from the same literary work in the same target language,this article undertook a comparative study on the two translating versions of On the Road by using Lefevere's "three principles" theory.The analysis shows that the two translating versions are so different in style because the two translators choose and use quite different translating strategies under the control of different poetics,ideologies and patronages,though they both try their best to reproduce the culture value of the original text.By doing this,this article may offer readers more sensible way to appreciate the two versions.
引文
Alvarez and M Carmen.Translation,Power,Subversion.Clevedon and Philadelphia:Multilingual Matters.1996.
Bassnett,Susan and Lefevere,Andre.Constructing Cultures——Essays on Literary translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2001.
Belsey,Catherine.Critical Practice.Beijing:Beijing Social Sciences Press.1993.
Charles,Lemert and Garth,Gillan.Michel Foucault.New York:Clumbia University Press.1982.
Chen,Liming.Translation as polyphonic dialogues.Chengdu:Sichun University Press.2006.
Colltom,Daniel.Text and Culture:The Politics of Interpretation:Theory and History of Literature.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.1989.
Davis,Kathleen.Deconstruction and Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Gentzler,Edwin.Contemporary Translation Theories.London and New York:Routledge.1992.
Gentzler,Edwin.Delisle and Judith Woodsworth.Translators through History.Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Co.1995.
Kerouac,Jack.On the Road.America:Penguin Books Ltd;New Ed edition.1998.
Lefevere,Andre.Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Lefevere,Andre.Translation/History/Culture,a Sourcebook.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Newmark,Peter.The Curse of Dogma in Translation Studies.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.1990.
Robinson,Douglas.Translation and Empire:Postcolonial Theories Explained.London and New York:Routledge.1997.
Simon,Sherry.Gender in Translation:Cultural Identity and the Politics of Translation.London and New York:Routledge.1996.
Snell-Homby,Mary.Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach.Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1998.
Tompkins,Jane P.Reader-Response Criticism:From Formalism to Post-Structuralism.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.1990.
Venuti,Lawrence.Rethinking Translation:Discourse,Subjectivity,Ideology.London:Routledge.1992.
Venuti,Lawrence.The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Weber,Max.Economy,Social Fields and Power.Beijing:SanLian Bookstore.1998.
埃文—佐哈尔·伊塔尔.多元体系论[J].张南峰译.中国翻译,2002(4).
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
丹尼斯·K·姆贝.组织中的传播和权利:话语,意识形态和统治[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000.
樊明亮.绝对没有垮掉的BG——文楚安教授访谈录[N].西南航空,2003(5).
郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2000.
孔惠怡.翻译·文学·文化[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1999.
廖七一.当代西方翻译理论探索[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
米歇尔·福柯.必须保卫社会[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1999.
孙会军.普遍与差异——后殖民批评视阈下的翻译研究[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2005.
石剑锋.文化价值高于文学价值[N].上海东方早报,2006(12).
田志凌.1957,垮掉分子来得正是时候[N].南方都市报,2006(15).
王东风.论翻译过程中的文化介入[J].中国翻译,1998(5):6-9.
王俊.从未停歇的纸上流浪[N].深圳特区报,2007(9).
王永年.《在路上》[Z].上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
文楚安.《在路上》[Z].广西:漓江出版社,1998.
文楚安.《在路上》在中国[M].广西:漓江出版社,1998.
吴虹飞.王永年:我不喜欢垮掉的一代[N].南方人物周刊,2007(26).
谢天振.翻译研究新视野[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2003.
许均.论翻译之选择[J].外国语,2002(1).
许渊冲.关于翻译学的论战[J].外语与外语教学,2001(11).
袁莉.关于翻译主体研究的构想[A].张柏然,许钧.面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
张鹭.王永年:《在路上》是事实主义作品[N].新世纪周刊,2006(34).
张京媛.新历史主义与文学批评[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1993.
张曼.时代文学语境与译介择取的特点[J].中国比较文学,2001(4):49-58.
张瑜.权利话语制约下的翻译活动[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001(5):70-73.
胡子博.漓江出版社简介[EB/OL].http://www.douban.com/group/topic/1061287/,2006-04-06.
米单.评论:在路上[EB/OL].http://www.douban.com/review/1094953/,2006-11-29.
文松辉.王永年简介[EB/OL].http://baike.baidu.com/view/602996.htm,2006-12-04.
夏立.上海译文出版社简介[EB/OL].http://book.sina.com.cn/nzt/p_shanghaivuwen/,2005-10-11.
朱徽.文楚安简介[EB/OL].http://baike.baidu.com/view/130055.htm,2007-09-17.
Bassnett,Susan and Lefevere,Andre.Constructing Cultures——Essays on Literary translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2001.
Belsey,Catherine.Critical Practice.Beijing:Beijing Social Sciences Press.1993.
Charles,Lemert and Garth,Gillan.Michel Foucault.New York:Clumbia University Press.1982.
Chen,Liming.Translation as polyphonic dialogues.Chengdu:Sichun University Press.2006.
Colltom,Daniel.Text and Culture:The Politics of Interpretation:Theory and History of Literature.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.1989.
Davis,Kathleen.Deconstruction and Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Gentzler,Edwin.Contemporary Translation Theories.London and New York:Routledge.1992.
Gentzler,Edwin.Delisle and Judith Woodsworth.Translators through History.Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Co.1995.
Kerouac,Jack.On the Road.America:Penguin Books Ltd;New Ed edition.1998.
Lefevere,Andre.Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Lefevere,Andre.Translation/History/Culture,a Sourcebook.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Newmark,Peter.The Curse of Dogma in Translation Studies.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.1990.
Robinson,Douglas.Translation and Empire:Postcolonial Theories Explained.London and New York:Routledge.1997.
Simon,Sherry.Gender in Translation:Cultural Identity and the Politics of Translation.London and New York:Routledge.1996.
Snell-Homby,Mary.Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach.Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1998.
Tompkins,Jane P.Reader-Response Criticism:From Formalism to Post-Structuralism.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.1990.
Venuti,Lawrence.Rethinking Translation:Discourse,Subjectivity,Ideology.London:Routledge.1992.
Venuti,Lawrence.The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Weber,Max.Economy,Social Fields and Power.Beijing:SanLian Bookstore.1998.
埃文—佐哈尔·伊塔尔.多元体系论[J].张南峰译.中国翻译,2002(4).
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
丹尼斯·K·姆贝.组织中的传播和权利:话语,意识形态和统治[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000.
樊明亮.绝对没有垮掉的BG——文楚安教授访谈录[N].西南航空,2003(5).
郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2000.
孔惠怡.翻译·文学·文化[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1999.
廖七一.当代西方翻译理论探索[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
米歇尔·福柯.必须保卫社会[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1999.
孙会军.普遍与差异——后殖民批评视阈下的翻译研究[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2005.
石剑锋.文化价值高于文学价值[N].上海东方早报,2006(12).
田志凌.1957,垮掉分子来得正是时候[N].南方都市报,2006(15).
王东风.论翻译过程中的文化介入[J].中国翻译,1998(5):6-9.
王俊.从未停歇的纸上流浪[N].深圳特区报,2007(9).
王永年.《在路上》[Z].上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
文楚安.《在路上》[Z].广西:漓江出版社,1998.
文楚安.《在路上》在中国[M].广西:漓江出版社,1998.
吴虹飞.王永年:我不喜欢垮掉的一代[N].南方人物周刊,2007(26).
谢天振.翻译研究新视野[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2003.
许均.论翻译之选择[J].外国语,2002(1).
许渊冲.关于翻译学的论战[J].外语与外语教学,2001(11).
袁莉.关于翻译主体研究的构想[A].张柏然,许钧.面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
张鹭.王永年:《在路上》是事实主义作品[N].新世纪周刊,2006(34).
张京媛.新历史主义与文学批评[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1993.
张曼.时代文学语境与译介择取的特点[J].中国比较文学,2001(4):49-58.
张瑜.权利话语制约下的翻译活动[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001(5):70-73.
胡子博.漓江出版社简介[EB/OL].http://www.douban.com/group/topic/1061287/,2006-04-06.
米单.评论:在路上[EB/OL].http://www.douban.com/review/1094953/,2006-11-29.
文松辉.王永年简介[EB/OL].http://baike.baidu.com/view/602996.htm,2006-12-04.
夏立.上海译文出版社简介[EB/OL].http://book.sina.com.cn/nzt/p_shanghaivuwen/,2005-10-11.
朱徽.文楚安简介[EB/OL].http://baike.baidu.com/view/130055.htm,2007-09-17.