《红楼梦》比喻辞格翻译对比研究
|
摘要
比喻(明喻和暗喻)在汉英两种语言中使用频率都比较高,文学作品中尤其如此。它是文学写作中最常见的一种修辞格。《红楼梦》是一座万紫千红的汉语言艺术的“大观园”,其中的比喻修辞确实为之添珠增玉。因此,在译文中成功地再现原著的比喻艺术对译入语的质量来说至关重要。传统修辞学认为,比喻是一种修辞手段;现代隐喻学认为,作为比喻之一的隐喻不仅是一种修辞方式,更是人们的一种思维方式和认知手段。对比喻的理解和认知的深入在文学作品翻译中得到更好的体现。
论文从比喻喻体的角度着手,详细探讨了《红楼梦》英译本中比喻的翻译方法。本论文选取中国知名学者杨宪益夫妇合译的《红楼梦》以及英国汉学家戴维·霍克斯(David Hawkes)及其女婿约翰·闵福德(John Minford)合译的《石头记》为研究对象,较为系统地分析、总结了《红楼梦》中比喻的翻译。以这两个译本中的译例来讨论比喻的翻译方法具有重要意义,这对翻译策略的研究和翻译实践都具有很高的价值。
论文运用对比的方法对中国古典小说《红楼梦》的比喻翻译进行了研究。在修辞学范畴内,本研究主要探讨了隐喻和明喻的翻译。从“喻体”角度着手,以对等论、目的论为理论基础,作者把《红楼梦》中的比喻译例分为三种类型,并分析了其在杨译本和霍译本中的翻译方法。对译例中存在的比喻的可译和不可译现象进行了讨论。
比较研究表明,尽管有时翻译方法存在相同,两种译本译者在多数情况下采用不同的翻译方法:当源语文本的比喻在目标语中有对应表达时,译本译者采用直译法(有时加解释语),在目标语文本中重塑源语喻体形象。这时的等值翻译得以实现。当源语文本的比喻在目标语文本中没有对应语,但通过目标语中的另一比喻语,原比喻喻体形象可以保留时,译者采用意译法,用目标语的比喻语取代原比喻语。这种情况实现了翻译的动态对等。当源语比喻在目标语中完全空缺时,译者采取各自的翻译手段。通常,杨宪益先生省去喻体,在目标语文本中传达隐含喻意。而霍克斯大都使用直译,直译加注或喻体替代等方法将原文比喻译成比喻。在这种情况下的不同译法是由于他们的翻译目的不同。杨宪益先生翻译《红楼梦》是为了将中国独特的文化传递给西方世界而霍克斯的翻译目的是带给西方读者最大的阅读快乐。因此,杨宪益先生通过传达源语喻体的隐含意义向西方介绍中国文化,从而放弃了源语中存在而目标语中空白的那一喻体形象。两种译本的不同点在于,霍克斯先生为了使译本对西方读者而言变得通俗易懂,将采用各种翻译手段(伴有解释性表达)把源语中的一切译成目标语。
Simile/Metaphor has a quite frequency of use in both Chinese and English language, especially in literature works. They are the most common figures of speech in literary writing. Honglou Meng is the“Grand-view Garden”of Chinese language full of artistic style; the use of metaphor truly adds effect to it. Accordingly, the successful reproduction of original simile/metaphor in translated versions is crucial to the improvement of translation quality. Simile/Metaphor is considered as a means of figurative speech in rhetoric. In modern metaphorical theory, metaphor, as one of figurative languages, is regarded not only as a rhetorical means, but also a way of thinking and a way for cognitive research. An in-depth understanding on metaphor is well witnessed in literature translation.
From the perspective of vehicle, the thesis thoroughly examined the approaches adopted in the translation of simile/metaphor in Honglou Meng. Taking A Dream of Red Mansions by Xianyi Yang and Gladys Yang, and The Story of the Stone by David Hawkes as the research objects, the author systematically analyzes and concludes the simile/metaphor translation in Honglou Meng. It is of great significance to pick up examples in two versions and make a study on the translation methods of simile/metaphor, and of great value to the study of translation strategy and practice.
The thesis makes a comparative study on the simile/metaphor translation in Chinese classical novel Honglou Meng. The study is within the rhetorical category, mainly talks about the translation of simile and metaphor. From the perspective of“vehicle”, based on the theory of equivalence, skopos theory, the author classifies three types of metaphor examples in Honglou Meng and analyzes their translation methods in Yang’s version and Hawkes’s version, then the author holds a discussion about the translatability and untranslatability of metaphor in those examples.
Through the comparison of Xang’s and Hawkes’s version, the author is convinced that the two translators adopt different translation methods though sometimes there exist the same translation methods. When a metaphor in ST has a correspondence in target language, two translators adopts literal translation method (sometimes plus expletory parts) to reproduce the original image in SL to TT, and the equivalence in TT is also achieved. When a metaphor in ST has no correspondence, but the original image can be retained through another established TL metaphor, two translators adopt free translation to replace vehicle with a new one in TT. In this case, the dynamic equivalence is achieved. When a metaphor in ST is totally empty in TT, two translators adopts respective means in translations. Normally, Yang Xianyi adopts vehicle omission in SL by freely translating its connotative meaning to TT. Hawkes, however, mostly translates the original metaphor into a metaphor in TL by literal translation, literal translation with amplification, or vehicle replacement, etc. Their different translation method in this case is due to their different purpose of translation. Yang Xianyi translates HongLou Meng in order to transmit unique Chinese culture to the western world while Hawkes’s translation purpose is to bring the greatest reading pleasure to western readers. Thus, Yang Xianyi introduces Chinese culture to the Western world by conveying the metaphorical meaning to TT, while giving up the original image of vehicle which is vacant in TT, whereas Hawkes translates everything in ST to TT by applying all kinds of translations methods (together with expletory expressions) to make his version more popular and easy to understand for Western readers.
论文从比喻喻体的角度着手,详细探讨了《红楼梦》英译本中比喻的翻译方法。本论文选取中国知名学者杨宪益夫妇合译的《红楼梦》以及英国汉学家戴维·霍克斯(David Hawkes)及其女婿约翰·闵福德(John Minford)合译的《石头记》为研究对象,较为系统地分析、总结了《红楼梦》中比喻的翻译。以这两个译本中的译例来讨论比喻的翻译方法具有重要意义,这对翻译策略的研究和翻译实践都具有很高的价值。
论文运用对比的方法对中国古典小说《红楼梦》的比喻翻译进行了研究。在修辞学范畴内,本研究主要探讨了隐喻和明喻的翻译。从“喻体”角度着手,以对等论、目的论为理论基础,作者把《红楼梦》中的比喻译例分为三种类型,并分析了其在杨译本和霍译本中的翻译方法。对译例中存在的比喻的可译和不可译现象进行了讨论。
比较研究表明,尽管有时翻译方法存在相同,两种译本译者在多数情况下采用不同的翻译方法:当源语文本的比喻在目标语中有对应表达时,译本译者采用直译法(有时加解释语),在目标语文本中重塑源语喻体形象。这时的等值翻译得以实现。当源语文本的比喻在目标语文本中没有对应语,但通过目标语中的另一比喻语,原比喻喻体形象可以保留时,译者采用意译法,用目标语的比喻语取代原比喻语。这种情况实现了翻译的动态对等。当源语比喻在目标语中完全空缺时,译者采取各自的翻译手段。通常,杨宪益先生省去喻体,在目标语文本中传达隐含喻意。而霍克斯大都使用直译,直译加注或喻体替代等方法将原文比喻译成比喻。在这种情况下的不同译法是由于他们的翻译目的不同。杨宪益先生翻译《红楼梦》是为了将中国独特的文化传递给西方世界而霍克斯的翻译目的是带给西方读者最大的阅读快乐。因此,杨宪益先生通过传达源语喻体的隐含意义向西方介绍中国文化,从而放弃了源语中存在而目标语中空白的那一喻体形象。两种译本的不同点在于,霍克斯先生为了使译本对西方读者而言变得通俗易懂,将采用各种翻译手段(伴有解释性表达)把源语中的一切译成目标语。
Simile/Metaphor has a quite frequency of use in both Chinese and English language, especially in literature works. They are the most common figures of speech in literary writing. Honglou Meng is the“Grand-view Garden”of Chinese language full of artistic style; the use of metaphor truly adds effect to it. Accordingly, the successful reproduction of original simile/metaphor in translated versions is crucial to the improvement of translation quality. Simile/Metaphor is considered as a means of figurative speech in rhetoric. In modern metaphorical theory, metaphor, as one of figurative languages, is regarded not only as a rhetorical means, but also a way of thinking and a way for cognitive research. An in-depth understanding on metaphor is well witnessed in literature translation.
From the perspective of vehicle, the thesis thoroughly examined the approaches adopted in the translation of simile/metaphor in Honglou Meng. Taking A Dream of Red Mansions by Xianyi Yang and Gladys Yang, and The Story of the Stone by David Hawkes as the research objects, the author systematically analyzes and concludes the simile/metaphor translation in Honglou Meng. It is of great significance to pick up examples in two versions and make a study on the translation methods of simile/metaphor, and of great value to the study of translation strategy and practice.
The thesis makes a comparative study on the simile/metaphor translation in Chinese classical novel Honglou Meng. The study is within the rhetorical category, mainly talks about the translation of simile and metaphor. From the perspective of“vehicle”, based on the theory of equivalence, skopos theory, the author classifies three types of metaphor examples in Honglou Meng and analyzes their translation methods in Yang’s version and Hawkes’s version, then the author holds a discussion about the translatability and untranslatability of metaphor in those examples.
Through the comparison of Xang’s and Hawkes’s version, the author is convinced that the two translators adopt different translation methods though sometimes there exist the same translation methods. When a metaphor in ST has a correspondence in target language, two translators adopts literal translation method (sometimes plus expletory parts) to reproduce the original image in SL to TT, and the equivalence in TT is also achieved. When a metaphor in ST has no correspondence, but the original image can be retained through another established TL metaphor, two translators adopt free translation to replace vehicle with a new one in TT. In this case, the dynamic equivalence is achieved. When a metaphor in ST is totally empty in TT, two translators adopts respective means in translations. Normally, Yang Xianyi adopts vehicle omission in SL by freely translating its connotative meaning to TT. Hawkes, however, mostly translates the original metaphor into a metaphor in TL by literal translation, literal translation with amplification, or vehicle replacement, etc. Their different translation method in this case is due to their different purpose of translation. Yang Xianyi translates HongLou Meng in order to transmit unique Chinese culture to the western world while Hawkes’s translation purpose is to bring the greatest reading pleasure to western readers. Thus, Yang Xianyi introduces Chinese culture to the Western world by conveying the metaphorical meaning to TT, while giving up the original image of vehicle which is vacant in TT, whereas Hawkes translates everything in ST to TT by applying all kinds of translations methods (together with expletory expressions) to make his version more popular and easy to understand for Western readers.
引文
1 Aristotle. (1976). Poetics. Translated by Gerald F. Else. Michigan University Press.
2 Aristotle. (1991). Rhetoric. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin.
3 Baker, M. (Ed.). (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.
4 Basenett-McGuire, S. (1980). Translation Studies. London: Methuen.
5 Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought. A. Ortony (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6 Brodkey, Linda: Review: The language in Metaphor College English 1988 Jan. V50 (1): 89-94.
7 Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall.
8 Carter, Alhert Howard,Ⅲ. Metaphors in the Physician-Patient Relationship. (Collections of the University Library, U. C. Santa Barbara, 1989, Spring V72 (1):153-164.
9 Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
10 Foss, Martin. (1949). Symbol and Metaphor is Human Experience.
11 Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12 Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge.
13 Hatim, B. (2005). Teaching and researching translation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
14 Johnson, Mark. Introduction: Why metaphor matters to philosophy. From Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10:157-162.1995.
15 Kittay, E. Metaphor: (1987). Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16 Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
17 Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18 Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19 Lakoff, George. A figure of thought. From Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1:215-225.1986.
20 Lynne Cameron & Graham Low, (2001). Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copyright and Licensed for Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
21 Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
22 Nida, E. A. Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating. On Translation, ed. by Reuben A. Brower. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1959: 11-31.
23 Nida, E. A. (1986). From One Language to Another (with Jan de Waard). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
24 Nida, E. A. (1993). Language, culture and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
25 Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.
26 Nida, E. A. (1995). Translating in the 21st Century. Hong Kong: Shaw College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
27 Nida, Eugene. (2001). A. Language and Culture: Contexts in Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
28 Nord, Christiane. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
29 Reiss, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans J. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
30 Reiss, Katharina. (1989). Text Types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment. Chesteman.
31 Richards, I. A. (1967). The philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
32 Ricoeur, P. (1986). The Rule of Metaphor. Trans. Czerny, R. with McLaughlin, K. & J. Costello. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd..
33 Rieu, E.V. & J. B. Phillips (1954) Translating the Gospels. Bible Translator, 6:150-9.
34 Shu Dingfang. (2000). Studies in Metaphor. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
35 Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36 Vermeer, Hans J. (1978). Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Aufs?t e zur Translationstheorie. Heidelberg.
37 Vermeer, Hans J. (1989). Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. In Chesterman, Andrew (tr.), Readings in Translation, Helsinki.
38陈刚,腾超.从语用与文化角度看比喻翻译[J].外语研究,2002(1): 52-56.
39成梅.《红楼梦》比喻翻译面面观[J].语言与翻译,1994(2): 64-72.
40冯翠华.英语修辞大全[J].北京:外语教育与研究出版社,2005, 1.
41金立.比喻喻体的模糊性及翻译对策——《红楼梦》比喻译谭[J].皖西学院学报,2005(6): 103-106.
42刘丽娟.《红楼梦》中文化性比喻的翻译[J].山东外语教学,2005(3): 94-97.
43刘丽娟.从语用角度探析《红楼梦》中比喻的翻译[J].泰山学院学报,2005(2): 93-96.
44刘士聪.红楼译评——《红楼梦》翻译研究论文集[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2004, 10.
45刘晓峰.从喻体对比的角度谈《红楼梦》比喻辞格英译[J].合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),2000(4): 115-118.
46李孜.试论英汉比喻修辞手法中喻体的翻译[D].上海交通大学,2008,12.
47亚里士多德.修辞学[M].罗念生译.北京:生活?读书?新知识三联书店,1991.
48缪兴梅.基于统计的汉英、英汉比喻翻译对比研究[D].南京师范大学,2007, 5.
49沈苏儒.论信达雅[M].北京:商务印书馆,1998.
50王广荪.简明英语修辞词典[Z].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992, 9.
51王宏印.《红楼梦》诗词曲赋英译比较研究[M].西安:陕西师范大学出版社,2001.
52魏以达.在译与不译之间——试论明喻句中相似点的英译[J].四川外语学院学报,1998(2): 102-107.
53谢天振.当代国外翻译理论导读[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2008.
54杨定都.从关联理论看《红楼梦》诗词中隐喻的翻译[D].上海外国语大学,2009, 5.
55赵一丁.从《红楼梦》中的比喻译法看翻译中的文化因素[J].中州大学学报,2007(7): 81-83.
56转引自Diacritics: A Review of Contemporary Criticism, 1988, Summer V18 (2): 26-37.
57庄文婷.《红楼梦》霍译本中明喻翻译的逆向分析[D].大连海事大学,2010, 6.
2 Aristotle. (1991). Rhetoric. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin.
3 Baker, M. (Ed.). (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.
4 Basenett-McGuire, S. (1980). Translation Studies. London: Methuen.
5 Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought. A. Ortony (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6 Brodkey, Linda: Review: The language in Metaphor College English 1988 Jan. V50 (1): 89-94.
7 Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall.
8 Carter, Alhert Howard,Ⅲ. Metaphors in the Physician-Patient Relationship. (Collections of the University Library, U. C. Santa Barbara, 1989, Spring V72 (1):153-164.
9 Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.
10 Foss, Martin. (1949). Symbol and Metaphor is Human Experience.
11 Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12 Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge.
13 Hatim, B. (2005). Teaching and researching translation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
14 Johnson, Mark. Introduction: Why metaphor matters to philosophy. From Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10:157-162.1995.
15 Kittay, E. Metaphor: (1987). Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16 Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
17 Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18 Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19 Lakoff, George. A figure of thought. From Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1:215-225.1986.
20 Lynne Cameron & Graham Low, (2001). Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copyright and Licensed for Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
21 Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
22 Nida, E. A. Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating. On Translation, ed. by Reuben A. Brower. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1959: 11-31.
23 Nida, E. A. (1986). From One Language to Another (with Jan de Waard). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
24 Nida, E. A. (1993). Language, culture and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
25 Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.
26 Nida, E. A. (1995). Translating in the 21st Century. Hong Kong: Shaw College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
27 Nida, Eugene. (2001). A. Language and Culture: Contexts in Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
28 Nord, Christiane. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
29 Reiss, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans J. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
30 Reiss, Katharina. (1989). Text Types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment. Chesteman.
31 Richards, I. A. (1967). The philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
32 Ricoeur, P. (1986). The Rule of Metaphor. Trans. Czerny, R. with McLaughlin, K. & J. Costello. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd..
33 Rieu, E.V. & J. B. Phillips (1954) Translating the Gospels. Bible Translator, 6:150-9.
34 Shu Dingfang. (2000). Studies in Metaphor. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
35 Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36 Vermeer, Hans J. (1978). Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Aufs?t e zur Translationstheorie. Heidelberg.
37 Vermeer, Hans J. (1989). Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. In Chesterman, Andrew (tr.), Readings in Translation, Helsinki.
38陈刚,腾超.从语用与文化角度看比喻翻译[J].外语研究,2002(1): 52-56.
39成梅.《红楼梦》比喻翻译面面观[J].语言与翻译,1994(2): 64-72.
40冯翠华.英语修辞大全[J].北京:外语教育与研究出版社,2005, 1.
41金立.比喻喻体的模糊性及翻译对策——《红楼梦》比喻译谭[J].皖西学院学报,2005(6): 103-106.
42刘丽娟.《红楼梦》中文化性比喻的翻译[J].山东外语教学,2005(3): 94-97.
43刘丽娟.从语用角度探析《红楼梦》中比喻的翻译[J].泰山学院学报,2005(2): 93-96.
44刘士聪.红楼译评——《红楼梦》翻译研究论文集[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2004, 10.
45刘晓峰.从喻体对比的角度谈《红楼梦》比喻辞格英译[J].合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),2000(4): 115-118.
46李孜.试论英汉比喻修辞手法中喻体的翻译[D].上海交通大学,2008,12.
47亚里士多德.修辞学[M].罗念生译.北京:生活?读书?新知识三联书店,1991.
48缪兴梅.基于统计的汉英、英汉比喻翻译对比研究[D].南京师范大学,2007, 5.
49沈苏儒.论信达雅[M].北京:商务印书馆,1998.
50王广荪.简明英语修辞词典[Z].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992, 9.
51王宏印.《红楼梦》诗词曲赋英译比较研究[M].西安:陕西师范大学出版社,2001.
52魏以达.在译与不译之间——试论明喻句中相似点的英译[J].四川外语学院学报,1998(2): 102-107.
53谢天振.当代国外翻译理论导读[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2008.
54杨定都.从关联理论看《红楼梦》诗词中隐喻的翻译[D].上海外国语大学,2009, 5.
55赵一丁.从《红楼梦》中的比喻译法看翻译中的文化因素[J].中州大学学报,2007(7): 81-83.
56转引自Diacritics: A Review of Contemporary Criticism, 1988, Summer V18 (2): 26-37.
57庄文婷.《红楼梦》霍译本中明喻翻译的逆向分析[D].大连海事大学,2010, 6.