解构主义与结构主义翻译思想的对比研究
|
摘要
后现代主义思潮曾经盛极一时,至今仍然对诸多学科产生着深远的影响。解构主义作为其中重要的一个思想流派,它给人们带来了思索问题的另一个角度,但由于解构主义理论的晦涩难懂,在研究过程中,人们对其持有的态度更多的是怀疑和否定,只看到了它的破坏性。本文将在翻译思想的视域下,运用比较分析的方法,把解构主义与结构主义做一对比,从一个理性的角度对解构主义进行研究。
本文首先分别对翻译思想中结构主义和解构主义方法论的应用进行介绍。着重论述了结构主义方法论中语言结构、整体性、共时性、二元对立的分析方法,以及解构主义方法论中延异和互文性对于翻译思想所产生的影响;其次,本文把解构主义与结构主义的翻译方法进行了对比。结构主义的翻译方法就是模式—复制,而解构主义的翻译方法使文本的意义无限游移;此外,本文还将对解构主义与结构主义翻译思想中的原作者与译者的关系进行对比。结构主义翻译思想中原作者是第一位的,而解构主义更强调译者的主体性地位。但解构主义与结构主义之间并不是完全对立的,而是在继承的基础上重建。解构主义的本质是重构。
在研究结构主义与解构主义的过程中,本文作者发现很多学者对于解构主义都存有争议,有人认为它是虚无的,无法实现的,对现实没有指导意义,还有人认为它的思想中最重要的观点就是其破坏性。但本文作者认为争议也可能是一种误解,解构主义毕竟为我们提供了一个新的角度来思索问题,我们在看到其破坏性的同时,也应看到破坏后的重构。因此希望能在翻译思想这个视域下,为更全面地认识解构主义,并吸取其积极的一面来指导翻译理论实践做出一点贡献。
Postmodernism which achieved its crest once, is up to now still having fundamental influences on many subject areas. As one of the important ideologies of postmodernism, deconstructionism provides people with another way of thinking. However, since the theory of deconstructionism is hard to comprehend, it is often mistreated by people with the attitudes of doubts and negativity. Its subversiveness is overlooked by researchers in their process of doing research. Utilizing comparative anlysis, this paper is going to research on deconstructionism by comparing deconstructionism and structuralism under translation ideologies.
Firstly, this paper introduces respectively the applications of methodologies of structuralism and deconstructionism in translation ideologies. Special attention has been given to describe the analysis methods of language structure, integrating analysis, synchronic analysis and duality opposition under structuralism as well as the influence of the method of retaining differences and intertextuality under deconstructionism on translation ideologies.Secondly, this paper compares the translation methodologies of deconstructionism and structuralism. The translation methodology of structuralism is copy the mode, while deconstructionism is the free flow of the ideas of the text. Besides, this paper will also compare the relationships between authors and translators in the translation ideologies under deconstructionism and structuralism. In the translation ideologies under structur- alism, authors’ideas should be given first priority, while in deconstru- ctionism translators’ideas are given first priority. However, deconstructionism and struc- turalism are not absolutely opposite to each other but reestablished based on inh- eritance. The essence of deconstructionism is reconstruction.
In the process of researching on deconstructionism and structuralism, the author of this paper has found that there are disputes among scholars. Some scholars think that deconstructionism is vain, unattainable and can’t assist people in guiding reality. Others believe that the most important ideology of deconstruc- tionism is its subversiveness. The author of this paper contends that disputes are the possibly the results of misunderstandings. Deconstructionism has provides us with a new way of thinking. When we look at its subversiveness, we should also notice the reconstruction after the subversion. Therefore, the author of this paper hopes that under the scope of translation ideologies, a more comprehensive understanding on deconstructionism can be achieved. At the same time, the author also hopes that those affirmative aspects of deconstructionism can be adopted into translation ideologies.
本文首先分别对翻译思想中结构主义和解构主义方法论的应用进行介绍。着重论述了结构主义方法论中语言结构、整体性、共时性、二元对立的分析方法,以及解构主义方法论中延异和互文性对于翻译思想所产生的影响;其次,本文把解构主义与结构主义的翻译方法进行了对比。结构主义的翻译方法就是模式—复制,而解构主义的翻译方法使文本的意义无限游移;此外,本文还将对解构主义与结构主义翻译思想中的原作者与译者的关系进行对比。结构主义翻译思想中原作者是第一位的,而解构主义更强调译者的主体性地位。但解构主义与结构主义之间并不是完全对立的,而是在继承的基础上重建。解构主义的本质是重构。
在研究结构主义与解构主义的过程中,本文作者发现很多学者对于解构主义都存有争议,有人认为它是虚无的,无法实现的,对现实没有指导意义,还有人认为它的思想中最重要的观点就是其破坏性。但本文作者认为争议也可能是一种误解,解构主义毕竟为我们提供了一个新的角度来思索问题,我们在看到其破坏性的同时,也应看到破坏后的重构。因此希望能在翻译思想这个视域下,为更全面地认识解构主义,并吸取其积极的一面来指导翻译理论实践做出一点贡献。
Postmodernism which achieved its crest once, is up to now still having fundamental influences on many subject areas. As one of the important ideologies of postmodernism, deconstructionism provides people with another way of thinking. However, since the theory of deconstructionism is hard to comprehend, it is often mistreated by people with the attitudes of doubts and negativity. Its subversiveness is overlooked by researchers in their process of doing research. Utilizing comparative anlysis, this paper is going to research on deconstructionism by comparing deconstructionism and structuralism under translation ideologies.
Firstly, this paper introduces respectively the applications of methodologies of structuralism and deconstructionism in translation ideologies. Special attention has been given to describe the analysis methods of language structure, integrating analysis, synchronic analysis and duality opposition under structuralism as well as the influence of the method of retaining differences and intertextuality under deconstructionism on translation ideologies.Secondly, this paper compares the translation methodologies of deconstructionism and structuralism. The translation methodology of structuralism is copy the mode, while deconstructionism is the free flow of the ideas of the text. Besides, this paper will also compare the relationships between authors and translators in the translation ideologies under deconstructionism and structuralism. In the translation ideologies under structur- alism, authors’ideas should be given first priority, while in deconstru- ctionism translators’ideas are given first priority. However, deconstructionism and struc- turalism are not absolutely opposite to each other but reestablished based on inh- eritance. The essence of deconstructionism is reconstruction.
In the process of researching on deconstructionism and structuralism, the author of this paper has found that there are disputes among scholars. Some scholars think that deconstructionism is vain, unattainable and can’t assist people in guiding reality. Others believe that the most important ideology of deconstruc- tionism is its subversiveness. The author of this paper contends that disputes are the possibly the results of misunderstandings. Deconstructionism has provides us with a new way of thinking. When we look at its subversiveness, we should also notice the reconstruction after the subversion. Therefore, the author of this paper hopes that under the scope of translation ideologies, a more comprehensive understanding on deconstructionism can be achieved. At the same time, the author also hopes that those affirmative aspects of deconstructionism can be adopted into translation ideologies.
引文
1沃野.结构主义及其方法论.学术研究. 1996,(12):35 38
2 T?洪德里希.牛津哲学指南.牛津出版社,1995:180
3 J·M·布洛克曼.结构主义.李幼蒸译.中国人民大学出版社,2005:5 7
4迈克尔·莱恩.结构主义介绍.商务印书馆,1978:171~175
5皮亚杰.结构主义.倪连生,王琳译.商务印书馆,1996:2
6霍晋涛.探讨解构思想之源兼论解构何以成为可能.社科纵横. 2006,(12): 135
7 J·希利希·米勒.永远的修辞性阅读.王逢振. 2001年度新译西方文论选.漓江出版社,2002:363
8 Jonathan.Culler. On Deconstruction. Cornell University Press, 1982:85
9 R·赖安等编.当代西方文学理论导引.李敏儒译.四川文艺出版社,1986:115
10 Norris.Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. Routledge, 1991:6
11卡勒·乔纳森.论解构:结构主义之后的理论与批评.陆阳译.中国社会科学出版社,1998:72
12 Nida.Eugene. Towards a Science ofTranslation. E.J.Brill, 1964:1 3
13 Derrida.Jacques. Positions. The university of Chicago Press, 1981:27 185
14 Davis. Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:112
15 Venuti.Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. Routledge, 1992:8
16约翰·斯特罗克.结构主义以来:从列维·斯特劳斯到德里达.渠东,李康,李猛译.辽宁教育出版社/牛津大学出版社,1998:182~183
17周琴.关于索绪尔任意性原则的争鸣和启迪.南京师大学报. 1999,(1): 137 138 140
18李燕,赵红.对结构主义语言学派意义观的再认识.考试周刊. 2007,(14): 13~14
19陈本益.从索绪尔语言学的一个观点看德里达解构主义的危机.中国人民大学学报. 2002,(5):108
20赵光武主编.后现代主义哲学述评.西苑出版社,2000:36
21陈后诚.西方文学批评在中国.百花文艺出版社,2000:403
22刘放桐.后现代主义与西方哲学的当代走向.国外社会科学.1996:3
23杜小真.德里达的解构主义.首都师范大学学报. 2000,(5):95 97
24李彦玲.解构的踪迹—法国后结构主义之我见.语文学刊. 2006,(3):100
25王治河.后现代哲学思潮研究.北京大学出版社,2006:147
26涂传娥.浅谈解构主义翻译观.安徽工业大学学报. 2006,(4):99
27朱立元.当代西方文艺理论.华东师范大学出版社,2001:193
28谢天振.翻译研究新视野.青岛出版社,2002:156
29王东风.解构“忠实”—翻译神话的终结.中国翻译. 2004,(6):3~9
30黄振定.解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性.中国翻译. 2005,(1):21~22
31杜小真.德里达和现象学.现代哲学. 2006,(4):66~71
32苏琪.继承与颠覆:论结构主义与解构主义的关系.广东工业大学学报. 2005,(1):79
33曹山柯.都是为了追寻文本的意义踪迹:结构主义与解构主义文论思想比较研究.四川外语学院学报. 2002,(1):9
34 Ferdinand D. Saussure. Course in General Linguistics. Fontana/Collins, 1974:58~60 113~115 74~83 12~13
35杨静.解读索绪尔的结构主义语言观.安康学院学报. 2007,(1):57
36胡铁生.结构与解构:基于文本的悖论与统一.东北师大学报. 2006,(6): 118
37田建尔.从结构主义到解构主义的演进及其影响.晋中师范高等专科学校学报. 2004,(4):308
38特里·伊格尔顿.沃尔特·本雅明.译林出版社,2005:112
39乔纳森·卡勒.结构主义诗学.盛宁译.中国社会科学出版社,1991:89
40林敏.略论结构主义的结构认识方法.中国人民大学书报资料社. 1982,(10):89~95
41 J·卡勒.索绪尔.中国社会科学出版社,1992:123 57 41 73
42霍克斯.结构主义和符号学.上海译文出版社,1987:34 15
43沈洁瑕.从二元对立的角度解读结构主义文论.黄山学院学报. 2007,(1):135
44 Eugene A. Nida, Charles R.Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:13~54
45冯光武.理性才是主旋律—论格赖斯意义理论背后的哲学关怀.外语学刊.2006,(4):6~11
46 J. Claude. Evans. Strategies of Deconstruction Derrida and the Myth of the Voice. University of Minnesota Press, 1991:148
47 Derrida. J. Writing and Differences. Trans.Alan Bass. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1978:112
48陶渝苏.解构的魅力与魔力—评德里达解构主义的得与失.贵州社会科学. 2007,(4):43
49文森特·B·里奇著.解构主义批评.王晓群译.中央编译局,1983:187
50廖七一.当代西方翻译理论探索.译林出版社,2000:74
51 Gentzler. Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:147 165
52 Barthes. Roland. Style and Its Image. Routledge, 1971:10
53罗志高.解构主义和翻译研究.北京第二外国语学院学报. 2003,(4):42
54 Lefevere. Andre. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Routledge, 1992:55
55 Hatim.B., Mason. Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002:121
56郭建中.当代美国翻译理论.湖北教育出版社,1999:92 78
57索绪尔.普通语言学教程.高名凯译.商务印书馆,1996: 100~125 113 43
58张思锐,莫嘉琳.索绪尔符号任意性原则的论争及其哲学指归.陕西师范大学学报. 2006,(3):54
59 Derrida. Jacques. Signature Event Context. The Columbia University Press, 1991:63~65
60张一平.结构与解构:从索绪尔到德里达.外语学刊. 2006,(4):15
61 Derrida. J. Roundtable on Translation. University of Nebraska Press, 1985:157
62 Rosanne. Keefe. Theories of Vagueness. Cambridge University Press, 2000: 11
63牛多方,刘兵飞.德里达解构主义与传统翻译理论.滁州学院学报. 2007,(2):105
64 Derrida. Jacques. Des Tours de Babel. Difference in Translation. Cornell University Press, 1985:91
65谭载喜.西方翻译简史.商务印书馆,2000:153
66罗兰·巴特.批评与真实.温晋仪译.上海人民出版社,1999:49~50.
67曹志平.理解与科学解释:解释学视野中的科学解释研究.社会科学文献出版社,2005:253
68肖庆华.“生”与“死”的荣耀—解构主义视域中的译者.文教论坛. 2007,(4):21
69 Barthes. Roland. The Death of Author. Edward Arnold Press, 1992:116
70司显柱.翻译主体研究:译者地位思辨.西安外国语学院学报. 2005,(4): 59
71 Alvarez. Roman, M.Camen-Africa Vidal. Translation, Power, Subversion. Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1996:11
72 Bassnett and Lefevere. Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1998:74
73郑玲玲.从韦努蒂解构主义思想看翻译的异化和归化.大学英语. 2007,(1): 128~129 130
74德里达关于现象学的谈话.杜小真译.法兰西文化广播节目. 1999:6
75李金树.多元、动态、模糊—解构主义翻译观与翻译标准的厘定.宜春学院学报. 2005,(1):97
76杜小真,张宁主编.德里达中国讲演录.中央编译出版社,2003:153
77德里达.书写与差异.三联书店,2001:16
78王宁.文学理论前沿.北京大学出版社,2005:200
2 T?洪德里希.牛津哲学指南.牛津出版社,1995:180
3 J·M·布洛克曼.结构主义.李幼蒸译.中国人民大学出版社,2005:5 7
4迈克尔·莱恩.结构主义介绍.商务印书馆,1978:171~175
5皮亚杰.结构主义.倪连生,王琳译.商务印书馆,1996:2
6霍晋涛.探讨解构思想之源兼论解构何以成为可能.社科纵横. 2006,(12): 135
7 J·希利希·米勒.永远的修辞性阅读.王逢振. 2001年度新译西方文论选.漓江出版社,2002:363
8 Jonathan.Culler. On Deconstruction. Cornell University Press, 1982:85
9 R·赖安等编.当代西方文学理论导引.李敏儒译.四川文艺出版社,1986:115
10 Norris.Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. Routledge, 1991:6
11卡勒·乔纳森.论解构:结构主义之后的理论与批评.陆阳译.中国社会科学出版社,1998:72
12 Nida.Eugene. Towards a Science ofTranslation. E.J.Brill, 1964:1 3
13 Derrida.Jacques. Positions. The university of Chicago Press, 1981:27 185
14 Davis. Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:112
15 Venuti.Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. Routledge, 1992:8
16约翰·斯特罗克.结构主义以来:从列维·斯特劳斯到德里达.渠东,李康,李猛译.辽宁教育出版社/牛津大学出版社,1998:182~183
17周琴.关于索绪尔任意性原则的争鸣和启迪.南京师大学报. 1999,(1): 137 138 140
18李燕,赵红.对结构主义语言学派意义观的再认识.考试周刊. 2007,(14): 13~14
19陈本益.从索绪尔语言学的一个观点看德里达解构主义的危机.中国人民大学学报. 2002,(5):108
20赵光武主编.后现代主义哲学述评.西苑出版社,2000:36
21陈后诚.西方文学批评在中国.百花文艺出版社,2000:403
22刘放桐.后现代主义与西方哲学的当代走向.国外社会科学.1996:3
23杜小真.德里达的解构主义.首都师范大学学报. 2000,(5):95 97
24李彦玲.解构的踪迹—法国后结构主义之我见.语文学刊. 2006,(3):100
25王治河.后现代哲学思潮研究.北京大学出版社,2006:147
26涂传娥.浅谈解构主义翻译观.安徽工业大学学报. 2006,(4):99
27朱立元.当代西方文艺理论.华东师范大学出版社,2001:193
28谢天振.翻译研究新视野.青岛出版社,2002:156
29王东风.解构“忠实”—翻译神话的终结.中国翻译. 2004,(6):3~9
30黄振定.解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性.中国翻译. 2005,(1):21~22
31杜小真.德里达和现象学.现代哲学. 2006,(4):66~71
32苏琪.继承与颠覆:论结构主义与解构主义的关系.广东工业大学学报. 2005,(1):79
33曹山柯.都是为了追寻文本的意义踪迹:结构主义与解构主义文论思想比较研究.四川外语学院学报. 2002,(1):9
34 Ferdinand D. Saussure. Course in General Linguistics. Fontana/Collins, 1974:58~60 113~115 74~83 12~13
35杨静.解读索绪尔的结构主义语言观.安康学院学报. 2007,(1):57
36胡铁生.结构与解构:基于文本的悖论与统一.东北师大学报. 2006,(6): 118
37田建尔.从结构主义到解构主义的演进及其影响.晋中师范高等专科学校学报. 2004,(4):308
38特里·伊格尔顿.沃尔特·本雅明.译林出版社,2005:112
39乔纳森·卡勒.结构主义诗学.盛宁译.中国社会科学出版社,1991:89
40林敏.略论结构主义的结构认识方法.中国人民大学书报资料社. 1982,(10):89~95
41 J·卡勒.索绪尔.中国社会科学出版社,1992:123 57 41 73
42霍克斯.结构主义和符号学.上海译文出版社,1987:34 15
43沈洁瑕.从二元对立的角度解读结构主义文论.黄山学院学报. 2007,(1):135
44 Eugene A. Nida, Charles R.Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:13~54
45冯光武.理性才是主旋律—论格赖斯意义理论背后的哲学关怀.外语学刊.2006,(4):6~11
46 J. Claude. Evans. Strategies of Deconstruction Derrida and the Myth of the Voice. University of Minnesota Press, 1991:148
47 Derrida. J. Writing and Differences. Trans.Alan Bass. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1978:112
48陶渝苏.解构的魅力与魔力—评德里达解构主义的得与失.贵州社会科学. 2007,(4):43
49文森特·B·里奇著.解构主义批评.王晓群译.中央编译局,1983:187
50廖七一.当代西方翻译理论探索.译林出版社,2000:74
51 Gentzler. Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:147 165
52 Barthes. Roland. Style and Its Image. Routledge, 1971:10
53罗志高.解构主义和翻译研究.北京第二外国语学院学报. 2003,(4):42
54 Lefevere. Andre. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Routledge, 1992:55
55 Hatim.B., Mason. Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002:121
56郭建中.当代美国翻译理论.湖北教育出版社,1999:92 78
57索绪尔.普通语言学教程.高名凯译.商务印书馆,1996: 100~125 113 43
58张思锐,莫嘉琳.索绪尔符号任意性原则的论争及其哲学指归.陕西师范大学学报. 2006,(3):54
59 Derrida. Jacques. Signature Event Context. The Columbia University Press, 1991:63~65
60张一平.结构与解构:从索绪尔到德里达.外语学刊. 2006,(4):15
61 Derrida. J. Roundtable on Translation. University of Nebraska Press, 1985:157
62 Rosanne. Keefe. Theories of Vagueness. Cambridge University Press, 2000: 11
63牛多方,刘兵飞.德里达解构主义与传统翻译理论.滁州学院学报. 2007,(2):105
64 Derrida. Jacques. Des Tours de Babel. Difference in Translation. Cornell University Press, 1985:91
65谭载喜.西方翻译简史.商务印书馆,2000:153
66罗兰·巴特.批评与真实.温晋仪译.上海人民出版社,1999:49~50.
67曹志平.理解与科学解释:解释学视野中的科学解释研究.社会科学文献出版社,2005:253
68肖庆华.“生”与“死”的荣耀—解构主义视域中的译者.文教论坛. 2007,(4):21
69 Barthes. Roland. The Death of Author. Edward Arnold Press, 1992:116
70司显柱.翻译主体研究:译者地位思辨.西安外国语学院学报. 2005,(4): 59
71 Alvarez. Roman, M.Camen-Africa Vidal. Translation, Power, Subversion. Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1996:11
72 Bassnett and Lefevere. Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1998:74
73郑玲玲.从韦努蒂解构主义思想看翻译的异化和归化.大学英语. 2007,(1): 128~129 130
74德里达关于现象学的谈话.杜小真译.法兰西文化广播节目. 1999:6
75李金树.多元、动态、模糊—解构主义翻译观与翻译标准的厘定.宜春学院学报. 2005,(1):97
76杜小真,张宁主编.德里达中国讲演录.中央编译出版社,2003:153
77德里达.书写与差异.三联书店,2001:16
78王宁.文学理论前沿.北京大学出版社,2005:200