论译者主体性的适度发挥
|
摘要
《达·芬奇密码》是丹·布朗所著,被称为经典小说与智力解谜结合的典范之作。自该书出版以来,荣登过全美所有主要书评排行榜之榜首,是自《哈利波特》之后又一部掀起全球热潮的悬念小说。本文以朱振武译本和尤传莉译本为分析对象,探索译者在翻译《达·芬奇密码》过程中所发挥的主体性是否适当,及其对译文所造成的影响。
本文开篇阐述了译者主体性的概念定义及相关理论。传统译论局限于文本对比和语言转换的范围内,并以“原著中心论”、“作者中心论”等来严格要求译者恪守“隐形人”的规则,译者不过是处于从属地位的传达工具,如“舌人”、“媒婆”,甚至是“原作者的奴隶”。20世纪70年代以来,随着翻译研究的“文化转向”,国际译学研究经历了从语言研究到文化视角的巨大转变。众多翻译理论家开始把目光投向一直默默无闻的译者,承认其在翻译过程中所发挥的主观能动性,并将其从“隐形”的桎梏中解脱出来,确立了译者的翻译主体地位。
译者主体性贯穿于翻译活动的全过程,不仅体现在译者对作品的理解、阐释和再现,也体现在对文本的选择、翻译策略的选择等方面。然而,随着译者主体性的彰显,有人认为发挥译者主体性便是抛离原文,随心所欲,从而忽略了任何主体性都有制约性的一面。译者主体性是要受到一定制约的,而这些制约因素可以具体到译者的文化先结构、双语文化能力、原文及作者以及译文接受者等。探讨并重视这些制约因素的原因在于它们并非仅仅是对译者的羁绊和约束,而是译者正确发挥主体性的诀窍,是译者的潜力所在。
本文通过对《达·芬奇密码》两个译本的研究及对比,侧重于朱振武的译文,并将其划分为两大类。一类是由于译者主体性的适度发挥,译文忠实地再现了原文的内容及风格,更好地贴近了读者；另一类则由于译者受到了自身背景知识、文化障碍及语言水平的限制,甚至在某些地方过度夸大译者主体性的能动性,导致译文的内容及风格在与原文出现偏差,一定程度上影响了译文的质量。
最后,本文试图总结,翻译绝不是机械的文字转换,译者主体性的存在不仅是客观的,也是十分重要的。然而,译者主体性的发挥应当适度,主体性的发挥是有底线的。而这个底线就是,翻译应当忠实于文本的原意,即,信是翻译的底线。我们必须意识到译者主体性的发挥是受到一定条件制约的。在了解这些制约因素的基础上,译者才能更适当有效地进行翻译操作,从而提高译文质量,对原文作者及读者负责。
The Da Vinci Code is a mystery and detective novel by American author Dan Brown. Having been remaining on the top of the New York Times Bestseller List for the whole 34 weeks since its release in April 2003, The Da Vinci Code is considered to be the most popular book after Harry Porter. Through a comparative study of the two Chinese versions in detail, the author intends to explore the properness of the display of translator's subjectivity and its influence on target text.
This thesis starts with a brief introduction of the definition of translator's subjectivity as well as the changes of the translator's position. Traditional translation theory is always limited in the field of textual comparison and language transformation, putting "text-oriented principle" and "author-oriented principle" as the rigorous rules on translators, asking them to be "invisible" during the translation process. As a "match-maker" or even the "slave" of the original author, the translator is acting as a "dictation tool" in a subdominant position. Then in the 1970s, with the occurrence of "cultural turn" in the western translation study, the international translation study switched its attention from linguistic study to cultural perspective. A great many translation theorists begin to notice the role of translator. Once an invisible presence behind the textual "scene", translator is now being granted a leading role in the signifying process and threatens even to upstage the author. The significance of the translator's subjectivity has been realized.
The translator's subjectivity penetrates the whole process of translating activity. It is not only manifested in the understanding, interpretation and reproduction of the original work, but also in the selection of translation material and the choice of translation strategy. However, with the recognition of translator's subjectivity, the display of subjectivity is mistakenly taken as the freedom to do whatever the translator likes without the consideration of the original work in someone's opinion, and the conditionality of translator's subjectivity has been ignored. The translator's subjectivity is under some kinds of restrictions, such as the original cultural structure of translator, the bilingual cultural ability of translator, the original author and text as well as the recipients of the translation. Discussing and paying attention to those restrictive factors is not only serving as a fetter or constraint for translators, but also offering the tips for how to display the translator's subjectivity properly.
After that, emphasizing on the translation of Zhu Zhenwu (朱振武), through the comparative study of the two Chinese versions of The Da Vinci Code, the author attempts to classify the translation into two parts. For one part, due to the proper display of translator's subjectivity, Zhu Zhenwu's (朱振武) translation has faithfully reproduced the ideas and style of the original and successfully approached to readers. For the other part, nevertheless, due to the restrictions of the translator's background knowledge, cultural elements, language skill, and even the excessive exaggeration of the subjectivity, the ideas and style of Zhu Zhenwu's(朱振武)translation have deviated from that of the original, therefore influencing the quality of translation to some extent.
As a conclusion, the thesis intends to declare that translation is more than a scientific transformation of languages. The existence of translator's subjectivity is not only objective but also significant. However, the display of translator's subjectivity should be proper, and there is a bottom line for that—translation should be faithful to the original. In other words, "faithfulness" is the bottom line of translation. The translator's subjectivity is under some kinds of restrictions. By understanding those restrictive factors well, the translator is able to manipulate translation better and promote the quality and acceptability of translation.
本文开篇阐述了译者主体性的概念定义及相关理论。传统译论局限于文本对比和语言转换的范围内,并以“原著中心论”、“作者中心论”等来严格要求译者恪守“隐形人”的规则,译者不过是处于从属地位的传达工具,如“舌人”、“媒婆”,甚至是“原作者的奴隶”。20世纪70年代以来,随着翻译研究的“文化转向”,国际译学研究经历了从语言研究到文化视角的巨大转变。众多翻译理论家开始把目光投向一直默默无闻的译者,承认其在翻译过程中所发挥的主观能动性,并将其从“隐形”的桎梏中解脱出来,确立了译者的翻译主体地位。
译者主体性贯穿于翻译活动的全过程,不仅体现在译者对作品的理解、阐释和再现,也体现在对文本的选择、翻译策略的选择等方面。然而,随着译者主体性的彰显,有人认为发挥译者主体性便是抛离原文,随心所欲,从而忽略了任何主体性都有制约性的一面。译者主体性是要受到一定制约的,而这些制约因素可以具体到译者的文化先结构、双语文化能力、原文及作者以及译文接受者等。探讨并重视这些制约因素的原因在于它们并非仅仅是对译者的羁绊和约束,而是译者正确发挥主体性的诀窍,是译者的潜力所在。
本文通过对《达·芬奇密码》两个译本的研究及对比,侧重于朱振武的译文,并将其划分为两大类。一类是由于译者主体性的适度发挥,译文忠实地再现了原文的内容及风格,更好地贴近了读者；另一类则由于译者受到了自身背景知识、文化障碍及语言水平的限制,甚至在某些地方过度夸大译者主体性的能动性,导致译文的内容及风格在与原文出现偏差,一定程度上影响了译文的质量。
最后,本文试图总结,翻译绝不是机械的文字转换,译者主体性的存在不仅是客观的,也是十分重要的。然而,译者主体性的发挥应当适度,主体性的发挥是有底线的。而这个底线就是,翻译应当忠实于文本的原意,即,信是翻译的底线。我们必须意识到译者主体性的发挥是受到一定条件制约的。在了解这些制约因素的基础上,译者才能更适当有效地进行翻译操作,从而提高译文质量,对原文作者及读者负责。
The Da Vinci Code is a mystery and detective novel by American author Dan Brown. Having been remaining on the top of the New York Times Bestseller List for the whole 34 weeks since its release in April 2003, The Da Vinci Code is considered to be the most popular book after Harry Porter. Through a comparative study of the two Chinese versions in detail, the author intends to explore the properness of the display of translator's subjectivity and its influence on target text.
This thesis starts with a brief introduction of the definition of translator's subjectivity as well as the changes of the translator's position. Traditional translation theory is always limited in the field of textual comparison and language transformation, putting "text-oriented principle" and "author-oriented principle" as the rigorous rules on translators, asking them to be "invisible" during the translation process. As a "match-maker" or even the "slave" of the original author, the translator is acting as a "dictation tool" in a subdominant position. Then in the 1970s, with the occurrence of "cultural turn" in the western translation study, the international translation study switched its attention from linguistic study to cultural perspective. A great many translation theorists begin to notice the role of translator. Once an invisible presence behind the textual "scene", translator is now being granted a leading role in the signifying process and threatens even to upstage the author. The significance of the translator's subjectivity has been realized.
The translator's subjectivity penetrates the whole process of translating activity. It is not only manifested in the understanding, interpretation and reproduction of the original work, but also in the selection of translation material and the choice of translation strategy. However, with the recognition of translator's subjectivity, the display of subjectivity is mistakenly taken as the freedom to do whatever the translator likes without the consideration of the original work in someone's opinion, and the conditionality of translator's subjectivity has been ignored. The translator's subjectivity is under some kinds of restrictions, such as the original cultural structure of translator, the bilingual cultural ability of translator, the original author and text as well as the recipients of the translation. Discussing and paying attention to those restrictive factors is not only serving as a fetter or constraint for translators, but also offering the tips for how to display the translator's subjectivity properly.
After that, emphasizing on the translation of Zhu Zhenwu (朱振武), through the comparative study of the two Chinese versions of The Da Vinci Code, the author attempts to classify the translation into two parts. For one part, due to the proper display of translator's subjectivity, Zhu Zhenwu's (朱振武) translation has faithfully reproduced the ideas and style of the original and successfully approached to readers. For the other part, nevertheless, due to the restrictions of the translator's background knowledge, cultural elements, language skill, and even the excessive exaggeration of the subjectivity, the ideas and style of Zhu Zhenwu's(朱振武)translation have deviated from that of the original, therefore influencing the quality of translation to some extent.
As a conclusion, the thesis intends to declare that translation is more than a scientific transformation of languages. The existence of translator's subjectivity is not only objective but also significant. However, the display of translator's subjectivity should be proper, and there is a bottom line for that—translation should be faithful to the original. In other words, "faithfulness" is the bottom line of translation. The translator's subjectivity is under some kinds of restrictions. By understanding those restrictive factors well, the translator is able to manipulate translation better and promote the quality and acceptability of translation.
引文
Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. USA:Doubleday,2003.
Bassnett, Susan, and Lefevere, Andre. Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
De Man, Paul, Conclusions:Walter Benjamin's The Task of the Translator, Minneapolis:The University of Minnesota Press,1986.58.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London and New York:Routledge,1993.
Hatim, Basil, and Mason, Ian, Discourse and The Translator. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Lefevere, Andre, ed. Translation/History/Culture:A Source Book. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004a.
—ed. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004b.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Application. London & New York:Routledge,2001.
Nord, Christiane. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam:Rodopi,1991. 28.
Nida, Eugene A. Language, Culture, and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1993.
—.Towards a Science of Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004a.
—, and Taber, Charles.R. The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004b.
Steiner, George. After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001. 313-319.
Tytler, A.F. Essay on the Principles of Translation. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching And Research Press,2007.10-112.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translators'Invisibility:A History of Translation. London:Routledge,1995.52-56.
Vermeer, H; “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action." Readings in translation theory. Ed. Andrew Chesterman. Helsinki:Finn Lectura,1989.173-187.
草婴.“老老实实做人,认认真真翻译”.译林5(1999).211.
陈大亮.谁是翻译主体.中国翻译2(2004).3-7.
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
丹布朗.达文西密码.尤传莉,译.台北：时报出版,2004.
—达·芬奇密码.朱振武,吴晟,&周元晓,译.上海：上海人民出版社,2004.
郭宏安.自设藩篱,循迹而行—谈翻译风格.译林3(1999).215.
郭建中.当代美国翻译理论.湖北：湖北教育出版社,1999.74.
贺显斌.严复的《天演论·译例言》的写作动机.上海翻译3(2005).66-69.
霍跃红.本色译者—汪榕培.中国翻译5(2005).68-70.
江小春 & 张磷.中国译者边缘化地位形成原因探讨.长春理工大学学报1(2008).95-97.
鲁迅.《绛洞花主》小引.《鲁迅全集》第八卷“集外集拾遗补编”.北京：人民文学出版社,1980.147.
马祖毅.中国翻译简史:“五四”以前部分.北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
孟昭毅 & 李载道.中国翻译文学史.北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
乔曾锐.译论：翻译经验与翻译艺术的评论和探讨.北京：中华工商联合出版社,2000.338-342.
沈苏儒.论信达雅—严复翻译理论研究.北京：商务印书馆,1998.3.
谭璐.朱振武破解丹·布朗密码.北京青年报6400(2006).D4.
谭载喜.西方翻译简史.北京：商务印书馆,1991.
屠国元 & 朱献珑.译者主体性：阐释学的阐释.中国翻译6(2003).8-14.
王家义.译者角色—从“隐形”到“操纵”.湖北经济学院学报2(2008).139-140.
王姝婧.从幕后到幕前—译者身份的历时比较与共时分析.外国语言文学1(2004).57-61.
翁显良.意态由来画不成.北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1985.56.
谢天振.译介学.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
许钧.论文学翻译再创造的度.外语研究4(1989).60-64.
—文学翻译的理论与实践：翻译对话录.南京：译林出版社,2001.
“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立.中国翻译1(2003).6-11.
许渊冲.翻译：“美化之艺术”—新旧世纪交谈录.译林3(1998).202.
杨武能.尴尬与自如,傲慢与自卑—文学翻译家人格心理漫说.翻译思考录.许钧,编.武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998.
—漫谈文学翻译主体.译林3(2000).214.
杨镇明,编.朗文当代高级英语词典.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
叶君健.关于文学作品翻译的一点体会.北京：北京大学出版社,1989.
20.
袁莉.也谈翻译主体意识.中国翻译3(1996).4-8.
查明建 & 田雨.论译者主体性—从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起.中国翻译1(2003).19-24.
赵毅衡.林语堂与诺贝尔奖.中华读书报9(2000).
仲伟合 ＆ 周静.译者的极限与底线.外语与外语教学7(2006).42-46.
朱云云 & 谢华.浅谈文学翻译中的译者主体性.牡丹江师范学院学院2(2009).69-71.
朱振武.相似性：文学翻译的审美旨归—从丹·布朗小说的翻译实践看美学理念与翻译思维的互动.中国翻译2(2006).
王汝涌. 《达·芬奇密码》中译本的翻译质量低下.10 Apr.2009..
游惠玲.时报出版事事早一步—《达文西密码》里的畅销秘密.12 Apr.2009..
朱振武.朱振武就王汝涌先生(或女士)所提问题致信新语丝.10 Apr.2009..
Bassnett, Susan, and Lefevere, Andre. Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
De Man, Paul, Conclusions:Walter Benjamin's The Task of the Translator, Minneapolis:The University of Minnesota Press,1986.58.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London and New York:Routledge,1993.
Hatim, Basil, and Mason, Ian, Discourse and The Translator. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Lefevere, Andre, ed. Translation/History/Culture:A Source Book. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004a.
—ed. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004b.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Application. London & New York:Routledge,2001.
Nord, Christiane. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam:Rodopi,1991. 28.
Nida, Eugene A. Language, Culture, and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1993.
—.Towards a Science of Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004a.
—, and Taber, Charles.R. The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004b.
Steiner, George. After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001. 313-319.
Tytler, A.F. Essay on the Principles of Translation. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching And Research Press,2007.10-112.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translators'Invisibility:A History of Translation. London:Routledge,1995.52-56.
Vermeer, H; “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action." Readings in translation theory. Ed. Andrew Chesterman. Helsinki:Finn Lectura,1989.173-187.
草婴.“老老实实做人,认认真真翻译”.译林5(1999).211.
陈大亮.谁是翻译主体.中国翻译2(2004).3-7.
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
丹布朗.达文西密码.尤传莉,译.台北：时报出版,2004.
—达·芬奇密码.朱振武,吴晟,&周元晓,译.上海：上海人民出版社,2004.
郭宏安.自设藩篱,循迹而行—谈翻译风格.译林3(1999).215.
郭建中.当代美国翻译理论.湖北：湖北教育出版社,1999.74.
贺显斌.严复的《天演论·译例言》的写作动机.上海翻译3(2005).66-69.
霍跃红.本色译者—汪榕培.中国翻译5(2005).68-70.
江小春 & 张磷.中国译者边缘化地位形成原因探讨.长春理工大学学报1(2008).95-97.
鲁迅.《绛洞花主》小引.《鲁迅全集》第八卷“集外集拾遗补编”.北京：人民文学出版社,1980.147.
马祖毅.中国翻译简史:“五四”以前部分.北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
孟昭毅 & 李载道.中国翻译文学史.北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
乔曾锐.译论：翻译经验与翻译艺术的评论和探讨.北京：中华工商联合出版社,2000.338-342.
沈苏儒.论信达雅—严复翻译理论研究.北京：商务印书馆,1998.3.
谭璐.朱振武破解丹·布朗密码.北京青年报6400(2006).D4.
谭载喜.西方翻译简史.北京：商务印书馆,1991.
屠国元 & 朱献珑.译者主体性：阐释学的阐释.中国翻译6(2003).8-14.
王家义.译者角色—从“隐形”到“操纵”.湖北经济学院学报2(2008).139-140.
王姝婧.从幕后到幕前—译者身份的历时比较与共时分析.外国语言文学1(2004).57-61.
翁显良.意态由来画不成.北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1985.56.
谢天振.译介学.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
许钧.论文学翻译再创造的度.外语研究4(1989).60-64.
—文学翻译的理论与实践：翻译对话录.南京：译林出版社,2001.
“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立.中国翻译1(2003).6-11.
许渊冲.翻译：“美化之艺术”—新旧世纪交谈录.译林3(1998).202.
杨武能.尴尬与自如,傲慢与自卑—文学翻译家人格心理漫说.翻译思考录.许钧,编.武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998.
—漫谈文学翻译主体.译林3(2000).214.
杨镇明,编.朗文当代高级英语词典.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
叶君健.关于文学作品翻译的一点体会.北京：北京大学出版社,1989.
20.
袁莉.也谈翻译主体意识.中国翻译3(1996).4-8.
查明建 & 田雨.论译者主体性—从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起.中国翻译1(2003).19-24.
赵毅衡.林语堂与诺贝尔奖.中华读书报9(2000).
仲伟合 ＆ 周静.译者的极限与底线.外语与外语教学7(2006).42-46.
朱云云 & 谢华.浅谈文学翻译中的译者主体性.牡丹江师范学院学院2(2009).69-71.
朱振武.相似性：文学翻译的审美旨归—从丹·布朗小说的翻译实践看美学理念与翻译思维的互动.中国翻译2(2006).
王汝涌. 《达·芬奇密码》中译本的翻译质量低下.10 Apr.2009.
游惠玲.时报出版事事早一步—《达文西密码》里的畅销秘密.12 Apr.2009.
朱振武.朱振武就王汝涌先生(或女士)所提问题致信新语丝.10 Apr.2009.