摘要
正如“诗的可译与不可译”是值得商榷的问题一样,“译者的隐身与显身”同样是翻译界争论的焦点。美国解构主义翻译理论倡导者劳伦斯·韦努蒂(Lawrence Venuti)在《译者的隐身》一书中表明:归化翻译策略使译文通顺圆润,却最终导致译者身份隐匿不显,一般读者对译者视而不见;只有抵抗式异化翻译策略方能保留原文异国情调,凸显译者地位重要。由此本文从文学翻译的角度出发,引发对“译者的隐身与显身”问题的重新审视:文学翻译中语言及形式上的“异国情调”是否就是拯救“隐身”译者的终极策略,“异国情调”的文学翻译是否恰当表现了译者的“显身”,这正是本文要阐述的问题。
研究结论显然对上述问题的回答是否定的。本文从译者的翻译意图、译者的个人风格、以及译者的再创作三方面系统分析了抵抗式异化翻译策略在文学翻译中无法从真正意义上显现译者自身。因为,异化的语言及形式仅仅生硬地强调文字间的转换,抹杀了文学的艺术性和译者的文学修养、语言风格等自身许多个性特点,而这些特点恰恰是译者间鲜明的区分,并包容在译者恰当的语言文字处理策略之中。从而引出论点:译者,隐则实显,显则实隐。“显”并非是借助于生硬死译来显现,“隐”也并非能依靠圆润条达来隐蔽。
忠实是翻译的基础,这是无可非议的。但是,由于人们在社会实践活动中所处的地位和角度不同,在对同一事物的认识时自然无法规避人的个性特点。文学翻译也是人们的社会实践活动之一,其作品必然会影印出译者的表现手法和翻译技巧。论文分为五章:
第一章,引言。介绍劳伦斯·韦努蒂的抵抗式异化翻译策略和译者借其显身的思想。进而反思出韦努蒂翻译理论难以完全适应文学翻译实践的要求,由此提出本文论题:译者无法以生硬的“忠实”译文显化自身在文学作品读者心目中的地位;译者的翻译意图、个人风格和再创作——隐蔽于译文中的这三方面或许是显化译者的隐性因素。
第二章,译者的意图。从译者翻译的文化和政治意图入手,较详细地分析译文是如何通过这两个隐性因素而显化自身的。
第三章,译者的风格。阐述译者个人风格形成的原因,并分析译者风格在译文中的具体表现,从而阐明了:译者个人风格是显化译者的隐性因素。
第四章,译者的再创作。从文学作品的美学特点入手,具体分析译者隐蔽在词汇和形式之中的再创作的“显性”。
第五章,结论。综述证明韦努蒂倡导的抵抗式翻译策略在文学翻译实践中难以从根本上显化译者的理论缺陷,从而得出“隐到极致则为显,显到极致则为隐”的结论。
The questions of translators’role models often cause a great deal of dissension. Lawrence Venuti, one of the influential scholars in contemporary deconstruction translation theory in America, initiates foreignization into his Translators’Invisibility (1995). In this book, Venuti elaborates on his dissidence against the invisibility of translators’explicit identity and expounds his deconstruction translation theory. According to Lawrence Venuti, transparency has devalued as“invisibility”which remarkably shadows the translators’efforts and even fades the translators’role model, thus the foreignization is his polemic to against that illusion of transparency. Then there is another viewpoint of Venuti’s. The magic of literary works is the aesthetic beauty and the profound enlightenment, which deeply affect the readers, so does literary translations. On this point, authors show distinctive features on selection of words, image, and technique, etc., due to their different aesthetic experiences, standpoints, and personalities. Thus it is irrefutable that translators uphold their own, which naturally mark on their purposes, styles, and unique strategies for they are incontestable authors of literary translations. With the foreignization, his ideal visibility, distinguishing no distinction of translators, makes translators undoubtedly invisible in literary translation. That is to say the different translators would unconsciously make marks on their versions, which can evidently display their visibility. Venuti’s visibility is really translations’visibility not translators’visibility, whereas traditional invisibility is definitely translations’invisibility and translators’visibility.
Therefore the intention of this thesis is from the side of translator’s individuality to reflect Venuti’s foreignization and to prove a re-conformation of translators’visibility: translators’visibility, representing by their purposes, styles, and recreation, is everywhere in version. Article Outline
Chapter 1 is the introduction. It will give an outline of Lawrence Venuti and his foreignization in this chapter. After that, an evaluation of translators’role models is promoted. Then the viewpoint that the translators’invisibility in Venuti’s is in fact visible in literary translation is put forward.
Chapter 2, 3, and 4 are the grounds of arguments from their purposes, styles, and recreation. An in-depth analysis will be made item by item in these chapters.
Chapter 5 is the conclusion. Through those cited instances, it reaches a conclusion that Venuti’s visibility inserts stricter and more astringent features in the text is made harder and less fluent, while the real translators would forget themselves but everything they do is to improve their versions, and their visibility will appear naturally in the targets.
引文
[1] Lefevere, Andre. Translation/History/Culture[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
[2] Chesterman, Ander. & Wagner, Emma. Can Theory Help Translations? A Dialogue Between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface[M]. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press, 2006.
[3] Mona, Baker. assisted by Kirsten Malmkjaer. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
[4] David, Lodge. Language of Fiction [M]. London: Routledge, 1966.
[5] Nida, Eugene A. Language, Culture and Translating[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1993.——. A Language and Culture-Context in Translating[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.——. &Taber, Charles R. The Theory and Practice of Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
[6] Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
[7] Hatim, B. & Mason, I. Discourse and the Translator[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
[8] David, Hawkes. The Story of the Stone[M]. London: Penguin Books, 1973.
[9] John, Minford. The Story of the Stone[M]. London: Penguin Books, 1973.
[10] Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
[11] Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.——. The Translator’s Invisibility[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
[12] Bassnett, Susan. &Lefevere, André. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. (eds.). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
[13] Thackeray, William. Vanity Fair[M]. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press, 1994.
[14] Xianyi, Yang. & Gladys, Yang. A Dream of Red Mansions[M]. Beijing: People’s Literature Press, 1994.——. The True Stories of Ah Q[M]. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2002.
[15]曹雪芹.红楼梦[M],上海:上海古籍出版社, 1994.
[16]陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1992.
[17]陈伟丰.谈傅雷的翻译[J],傅敏.傅雷谈翻译[C],北京:当代世界出版社, 2006.
[18]冯庆华.实用翻译教程[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.——.文体翻译论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2002.
[19]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M],武汉:湖北教育出版社, 1998.
[21]郭著章.翻译名家研究[M],武汉:湖北教育出版社, 1999.
[22]江枫.形似而后神似[J],许均.翻译思考录[C],武汉:湖北教育出版社, 1990.
[23]季羡林.季羡林谈翻译[M],北京:当代中国出版社, 2007.
[24]连淑能.英汉对比研究[M],北京:高等教育出版社, 1993.
[25]廖晶,朱献珑.论译者身份—从翻译理念的演变谈起[J],中国翻译, 2005(3): 14-19.
[26]林纾.黑奴吁天录[M],北京:商务印书馆, 1981.
[27]林语堂.浮生六记英译自序[A],寇晓伟.林语堂文集散文第十卷[C],北京:作家出版社, 1998.
[28]鲁迅.阿Q正传[M],北京:人民文学出版社, 1956.
[29]马祖毅.中国翻译简史五四以前部分[M],北京:中国对外出办公司, 2004.
[30]茅盾.为发展文学翻译事业和提高翻译质量而奋斗[J],罗新璋.翻译论集[C]北京:商务印书馆, 1984: 501-517.
[31]萨克雷.名利场[M],杨必译,北京:人民文学出版社出版, 1957.
[32]思果.翻译研究[M],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2001.——.翻译新究[M],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2001.——.译道探微[M],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2002.
[33]沈锡伦.中国传统文化和语言(修订本)[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
[34]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M],北京:商务印书馆, 1991.
[35]许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2006.——.文学与翻译[M],北京:北京大学出版社, 2003.
[36]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).
[37]王克非.翻译文化史论[M], .上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1997.
[38]王宗炎.评吕译伊坦·弗洛美[J],罗新璋.翻译论集[C],北京:商务印书馆, 1984.
[39]王佐良.新时期的翻译观[J],杜承南,文军.中国当代翻译百论[C],重庆:重庆大学出版社, 1994.——.翻译:思考与试笔[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1989.——.风格与风格背后[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1997.
[40]余光中.余光中谈翻译[M],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2004.
[41]张文勋.诗词审美[M],上海:上海文艺出版社, 1987.