中国传统译论中译者任务的现代阐释
|
摘要
翻译涵盖的不仅仅是一个译作,更重要的是它的过程。在翻译过程中,译者起到了举足轻重的作用。“文化转向”大大拓展了翻译的研究范围,也使得译者在翻译过程中获得了更多的自由空间。经历了“文化转向”,译者在翻译过程中的积极性、决定性作用得到充分体现。
中国有着上千年的翻译史。译者在中国历史上也有着不可动摇的地位。中国翻译家对中国传统译论乃至整个社会的发展都做出了重大贡献。中国的译者有着丰富而宝贵的翻译思想,提出了很多有价值的观点,这些都可以用现代翻译理论进行阐释。本文用现代西方翻译理论对中国传统译论进行阐释,旨在探索中国传统译论中对译者任务观点的理论价值并总结中国传统译论中体现的译者任务的思想。本文的最终目的是扩大译者任务的研究范围,促进中国传统译论的发展。
本文共分为三章。第一章指出西方翻译理论中对译者任务的研究。以“文化转向”为界,将西方翻译理论中对译者任务的研究分为文化转向前和文化转向后两个阶段。第一章中主要介绍的翻译流派有功能学派、目的论、多元论和结构主义等。第二章总结了中国传统译论中的重要译者。分为汉唐佛经翻译时期、元明到五四运动时期和五四运动到1949年三个时期。并且也介绍了当代中国的一些翻译理论。第三章是本文的核心部分。基于第一章和第二章的理论研究,用现代翻译理论对中国传统译论中译者任务的研究进行现代阐释。主要从以下几个方面:译者必须有工作责任心、译者必须对读者负责、翻译过程中译者要有翻译目的、译者必须是双重文化的持有者等。
Translation is not simply a product, but a complex process. In the process of translating, the functions of the translator take a leading part. The culture turn enlarges the domain of translation studies, endows the translator with more freedom to show his creativity, and personality redefines the role of the translator and puts the translator in an active and decisive role in translation process.
China possesses thousands of years of translation history. The translators have been occupying an unshakable position in Chinese history. Chinese translators have made great contributions to social development and traditional Chinese translation studies. Chinese translators have gained rich and valuable translation thoughts and viewpoints that can be interpreted through modern translation theories. This thesis aims at exploring the theoretical values of the traditional Chinese translation studies as well as finding the contents of the translators’responsibility reflected in the traditional Chinese translation studies by analyzing them from the perspective of modern translation theories, and thus to widen the research on the translators’responsibility and improve the development of Chinese translation studies.
The whole thesis is composed of three chapters. The first chapter addresses the studies on translators’responsibility in western translation theories. The author draws a line between the western translation theories, naming the studies on translators’responsibility before and after the culture turn. The main translation theories are represented in this chapter, such as functional approach and its Skopostheorie, Polysystem and Deconstruction approach, etc. In the second chapter, the author summarizes the main representative views in traditional Chinese translation studies- translation of Buddhist scripture in Han and Tang dynasties, translation studies from the Yuan and Ming dynasties to the May 4th Movement and literary translation from the May 4th Movement to 1949. In addition, the contemporary translation studies are mentioned in this chapter. Chapter Three is the main part of this thesis, which gives a modern interpretation to the responsibility of translator in traditional Chinese translation studies. Based on the analysis in Chapter One and Chapter Two, a modern interpretation of the responsibility in traditional Chinese translation studies is made. Chapter Three is composed of four parts: having a strong work ethic, being responsible for the target readers, bearing in mind his translating target and being a bicultural holder, etc.
中国有着上千年的翻译史。译者在中国历史上也有着不可动摇的地位。中国翻译家对中国传统译论乃至整个社会的发展都做出了重大贡献。中国的译者有着丰富而宝贵的翻译思想,提出了很多有价值的观点,这些都可以用现代翻译理论进行阐释。本文用现代西方翻译理论对中国传统译论进行阐释,旨在探索中国传统译论中对译者任务观点的理论价值并总结中国传统译论中体现的译者任务的思想。本文的最终目的是扩大译者任务的研究范围,促进中国传统译论的发展。
本文共分为三章。第一章指出西方翻译理论中对译者任务的研究。以“文化转向”为界,将西方翻译理论中对译者任务的研究分为文化转向前和文化转向后两个阶段。第一章中主要介绍的翻译流派有功能学派、目的论、多元论和结构主义等。第二章总结了中国传统译论中的重要译者。分为汉唐佛经翻译时期、元明到五四运动时期和五四运动到1949年三个时期。并且也介绍了当代中国的一些翻译理论。第三章是本文的核心部分。基于第一章和第二章的理论研究,用现代翻译理论对中国传统译论中译者任务的研究进行现代阐释。主要从以下几个方面:译者必须有工作责任心、译者必须对读者负责、翻译过程中译者要有翻译目的、译者必须是双重文化的持有者等。
Translation is not simply a product, but a complex process. In the process of translating, the functions of the translator take a leading part. The culture turn enlarges the domain of translation studies, endows the translator with more freedom to show his creativity, and personality redefines the role of the translator and puts the translator in an active and decisive role in translation process.
China possesses thousands of years of translation history. The translators have been occupying an unshakable position in Chinese history. Chinese translators have made great contributions to social development and traditional Chinese translation studies. Chinese translators have gained rich and valuable translation thoughts and viewpoints that can be interpreted through modern translation theories. This thesis aims at exploring the theoretical values of the traditional Chinese translation studies as well as finding the contents of the translators’responsibility reflected in the traditional Chinese translation studies by analyzing them from the perspective of modern translation theories, and thus to widen the research on the translators’responsibility and improve the development of Chinese translation studies.
The whole thesis is composed of three chapters. The first chapter addresses the studies on translators’responsibility in western translation theories. The author draws a line between the western translation theories, naming the studies on translators’responsibility before and after the culture turn. The main translation theories are represented in this chapter, such as functional approach and its Skopostheorie, Polysystem and Deconstruction approach, etc. In the second chapter, the author summarizes the main representative views in traditional Chinese translation studies- translation of Buddhist scripture in Han and Tang dynasties, translation studies from the Yuan and Ming dynasties to the May 4th Movement and literary translation from the May 4th Movement to 1949. In addition, the contemporary translation studies are mentioned in this chapter. Chapter Three is the main part of this thesis, which gives a modern interpretation to the responsibility of translator in traditional Chinese translation studies. Based on the analysis in Chapter One and Chapter Two, a modern interpretation of the responsibility in traditional Chinese translation studies is made. Chapter Three is composed of four parts: having a strong work ethic, being responsible for the target readers, bearing in mind his translating target and being a bicultural holder, etc.
引文
[1] Andrew Chesterman, Emma Wagner. Can Theory Help Translators? [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2006:18.
[2] Andrew Lefevere, Translation, History and Culture [M]. Newyork: Routedge, 1990:28.
[3] Baker, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:36-37.
[4] Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere Andre. Translation, History and Culture [M]. London: Cassel, 1990:76.
[5] Bell, Roger. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001:56.
[6] Dryden, J. Preface to Ovid’s Epistles , in E.N. Hooker and H.T. Swedenberg. The Works of John Dryden [M]. Vol. I. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1956:78,86.
[7] Edgar Taylor. Primitive Cultures [M]. Guangxi Normal University Press, 1971:98-99.
[8] Eugene Nida. Principles of Correspondence [A]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:172.
[9] Hans Vermeer. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action [A]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:38,46.
[10] Lefevere. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:12.
[11] Longman. Longman Dictionary of contemporary English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004:132-133.
[12] Lori Chamberlain. Gender and the Metaphorics of Translation [A]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:79.
[13] Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2001:189-190.
[14] Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001:67.
[15] Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation [M] Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981:157.
[16] Nida, Eugene A & Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Brill: Leiden, 1969:98-99.
[17] Nida, Eugene A. Language Culture and Translation [M]. Inner Mongolia University Press, 1998:213,215.
[18] Nida, Eugene A. languages, Culture and Translatingc [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press, 1993:355.
[19] Nord, Christiane. Text Analysis in Translation [M]. Amsterdam: Atlanta, GA,1991:67.
[20] Nord, Christiane. Translation as A Purposeful Activity---Functionalist Approach Explained [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001:199-200.
[21] Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism: The Potential and Limitations [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:97-98.
[22] Rolland, Romain. Jean Christophe [M]. Paris: Editions De Minuit, 1995 :76.
[23] Schwartz, Benjamin. In Search of Wealth and Power: Yan Fu and the West [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964:157-158.
[24] Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation [M]. London and New York: Routledge,1992.
[25] Venuti, Lawrence. The Translators’Invisibility [M]. London & New York: Routledge, 1995:547.
[26] Vermeer, Hans. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2002:98-99.
[27] Walter Benjamin. The Task of the Translator [A]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:67.
[28] Walter Benjamin. The Translation Studies Reader [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:112.
[29] Mary Snell-Hornby. Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press, 1988:167.
[30]陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译, 2004(3): 3-7.
[31]陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000:34-35.
[32]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学史论[M].湖北:湖北教育出版社, 1998:19.
[33]何立芳.神似论中的哲学命题[J].乐山师范学院学报2003(8)14-16.
[34]赫胥黎.天演论[M].严复译.北京:商务印书馆,1981:56,58.
[35]胡震.傅雷艺术批评思想研究[M].广州:暨南大学, 2005:23.
[36]廖晶.论译者身份——从理论的演变谈起[J].中国翻译, 2005 (3): 14-19.
[37]林佩璇.林纾翻译研究新探[M].福建:福建师范大学,2003:17-18.
[38]林纾.迦茵小传(译[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1981:62.
[39]林纾.汤姆叔叔的小屋(译[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1981:46.
[40]林臻.傅雷的艺术哲学[J].傅雷与他的世界,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店, 1996 (4): 242-252.
[41]刘必庆.《翻译与语言的哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 1990:26-27.
[42]刘重德.《文学翻译十讲[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1991:37.
[43]马祖毅.中国翻译简史[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2004:46-47.
[44]倪艳笑等.庞德的用心一从目的论的角度看庞德的译作《华夏[J].河北理工学院学报, 2003 (3):19.
[45]钱钟书.林纾的翻译[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1981:35-36.
[46]苏立群.傅雷别传[A].作家出版社, 2000:56.
[47]孙致礼.也谈神似与形似[A].外国语1992 (1) 45—47.
[48]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2002:17-18.
[49]王秉钦. 20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社, 2004:98.
[50]王东风.翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,2000 (4): 2-8.
[51]王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释——从道安到傅雷[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 2003:41.
[52]王佐良.论严复与严复名著——严复的用心[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1981:57.
[53]魏薇,刘晓云.大汉风神只此鲲—试论傅雷的翻译观[J].南华大学学报, 2006 (4)武景全.论形似的层次及神似的内涵[J].上海科技翻译2000 (4):6-10.
[54]谢天振,查明建.中国近代翻译文学史(1898-1949)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版,2004:78.
[55]谢天振.《译介学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003:46-47.
[56]谢天振.当代国外翻译理论导读[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2008:34.
[57]许钧.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].中国翻译,2003(1): 7-10.
[58]许钧.翻译论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003:98.
[59]徐渊冲.唐诗三百首[M].中国对外翻译出版公司,2007:111.
[60]严复译《天演论》[M].北京:商务印传馆,1981:36,42.
[61]杨晓荣.翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野[J].中国翻译,2001(6): 11-15.
[62]于崇洛,于立亭.试谈翻译中的寓“神似”与“形似”[J]临沂师专学报,1996 (1): 82-86.
[63]张景丰.从中国历史上四次翻译高潮谈翻译理论的发展[J].语言与翻译,2002(3):9-10.
[64]张思洁.中国传统译论范畴及其体系[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006:87.
[65]郑海凌.文学翻译学[C].郑州:文心出版社, 2000:56,59.
[66]朱原等译.朗文当代高级英语辞典:英英英汉双解[D].北京:商务印书馆,1998:9.
[2] Andrew Lefevere, Translation, History and Culture [M]. Newyork: Routedge, 1990:28.
[3] Baker, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:36-37.
[4] Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere Andre. Translation, History and Culture [M]. London: Cassel, 1990:76.
[5] Bell, Roger. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001:56.
[6] Dryden, J. Preface to Ovid’s Epistles , in E.N. Hooker and H.T. Swedenberg. The Works of John Dryden [M]. Vol. I. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1956:78,86.
[7] Edgar Taylor. Primitive Cultures [M]. Guangxi Normal University Press, 1971:98-99.
[8] Eugene Nida. Principles of Correspondence [A]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:172.
[9] Hans Vermeer. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action [A]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:38,46.
[10] Lefevere. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:12.
[11] Longman. Longman Dictionary of contemporary English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004:132-133.
[12] Lori Chamberlain. Gender and the Metaphorics of Translation [A]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:79.
[13] Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2001:189-190.
[14] Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001:67.
[15] Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation [M] Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981:157.
[16] Nida, Eugene A & Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Brill: Leiden, 1969:98-99.
[17] Nida, Eugene A. Language Culture and Translation [M]. Inner Mongolia University Press, 1998:213,215.
[18] Nida, Eugene A. languages, Culture and Translatingc [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press, 1993:355.
[19] Nord, Christiane. Text Analysis in Translation [M]. Amsterdam: Atlanta, GA,1991:67.
[20] Nord, Christiane. Translation as A Purposeful Activity---Functionalist Approach Explained [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001:199-200.
[21] Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism: The Potential and Limitations [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:97-98.
[22] Rolland, Romain. Jean Christophe [M]. Paris: Editions De Minuit, 1995 :76.
[23] Schwartz, Benjamin. In Search of Wealth and Power: Yan Fu and the West [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964:157-158.
[24] Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation [M]. London and New York: Routledge,1992.
[25] Venuti, Lawrence. The Translators’Invisibility [M]. London & New York: Routledge, 1995:547.
[26] Vermeer, Hans. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2002:98-99.
[27] Walter Benjamin. The Task of the Translator [A]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:67.
[28] Walter Benjamin. The Translation Studies Reader [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000:112.
[29] Mary Snell-Hornby. Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press, 1988:167.
[30]陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译, 2004(3): 3-7.
[31]陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000:34-35.
[32]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学史论[M].湖北:湖北教育出版社, 1998:19.
[33]何立芳.神似论中的哲学命题[J].乐山师范学院学报2003(8)14-16.
[34]赫胥黎.天演论[M].严复译.北京:商务印书馆,1981:56,58.
[35]胡震.傅雷艺术批评思想研究[M].广州:暨南大学, 2005:23.
[36]廖晶.论译者身份——从理论的演变谈起[J].中国翻译, 2005 (3): 14-19.
[37]林佩璇.林纾翻译研究新探[M].福建:福建师范大学,2003:17-18.
[38]林纾.迦茵小传(译[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1981:62.
[39]林纾.汤姆叔叔的小屋(译[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1981:46.
[40]林臻.傅雷的艺术哲学[J].傅雷与他的世界,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店, 1996 (4): 242-252.
[41]刘必庆.《翻译与语言的哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 1990:26-27.
[42]刘重德.《文学翻译十讲[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1991:37.
[43]马祖毅.中国翻译简史[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2004:46-47.
[44]倪艳笑等.庞德的用心一从目的论的角度看庞德的译作《华夏[J].河北理工学院学报, 2003 (3):19.
[45]钱钟书.林纾的翻译[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1981:35-36.
[46]苏立群.傅雷别传[A].作家出版社, 2000:56.
[47]孙致礼.也谈神似与形似[A].外国语1992 (1) 45—47.
[48]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2002:17-18.
[49]王秉钦. 20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社, 2004:98.
[50]王东风.翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,2000 (4): 2-8.
[51]王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释——从道安到傅雷[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 2003:41.
[52]王佐良.论严复与严复名著——严复的用心[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1981:57.
[53]魏薇,刘晓云.大汉风神只此鲲—试论傅雷的翻译观[J].南华大学学报, 2006 (4)武景全.论形似的层次及神似的内涵[J].上海科技翻译2000 (4):6-10.
[54]谢天振,查明建.中国近代翻译文学史(1898-1949)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版,2004:78.
[55]谢天振.《译介学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003:46-47.
[56]谢天振.当代国外翻译理论导读[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2008:34.
[57]许钧.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].中国翻译,2003(1): 7-10.
[58]许钧.翻译论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003:98.
[59]徐渊冲.唐诗三百首[M].中国对外翻译出版公司,2007:111.
[60]严复译《天演论》[M].北京:商务印传馆,1981:36,42.
[61]杨晓荣.翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野[J].中国翻译,2001(6): 11-15.
[62]于崇洛,于立亭.试谈翻译中的寓“神似”与“形似”[J]临沂师专学报,1996 (1): 82-86.
[63]张景丰.从中国历史上四次翻译高潮谈翻译理论的发展[J].语言与翻译,2002(3):9-10.
[64]张思洁.中国传统译论范畴及其体系[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006:87.
[65]郑海凌.文学翻译学[C].郑州:文心出版社, 2000:56,59.
[66]朱原等译.朗文当代高级英语辞典:英英英汉双解[D].北京:商务印书馆,1998:9.