从目的论角度看《红楼梦》中文化负载词的翻译
|
摘要
德国功能主义翻译理论学派中的目的论(skopos theory)认为翻译是一种基于源语文本的有目的的行为活动,决定翻译过程的最高准则是整个翻译行为的目的。这一理论使一直被用来衡量译文质量标准的“对等”被另一个评估标准“充分”所取代,从而为翻译研究开启了一个全新的视角。
本文以目的论原理为理论框架,分析《红楼梦》这一中国古典文学名著的两个英译本(杨宪益与戴乃迭的译本和大卫.霍克斯的译本)中文化负载词的翻译。本文运用目的论主要从五个方面即:生态文化,物质文化,社会文化,宗教文化,语言文化对《红楼梦》中文化负载词进行深入分析,说明目的论是如何影响译者翻译策略的选择,所选择的策略又如何影响了译文效果。通过对《红楼梦》两个译本的比较分析,作者发现两位译者在文化负载词的处理上采取了完全不同的翻译策略。主要表现在,杨氏的《红楼梦》译本偏向于文献式翻译,它以源语文本为中心,注重语际连贯。而霍克斯译本《石头记》则偏向于工具式翻译,它以译语文本为中心,注重语内连贯。研究进而发现,两个译本的不同特色,各自译本所达到的功能与其预期的目的是一致的。
两个译本风格迥然不同。就中国文化而言,杨的译文更忠实;而从西方读者的角度看,霍克斯的译文更易理解和接受。引用学者周钰良的评价就是“风格迥异,然各得其所”。因此作者得出的结论是:译文是否成功,翻译策略的选择是否恰当,关键是看他是否达到了自己的翻译目的。
Skopos theory, which developed from German functionalism, holds that translation is a form of transnational action based on a source text and the prime principle determining any transaction process is the purpose (skopos) of the overall transactional action. This theory had replaced "equivalence", an aged yardstick to judge the quality of translation with "adequacy", and has provided a new perspective for translation studies.
This thesis attempts to apply skopos theory and make a comparative study of the two English versions of Hongloumeng in terms of culture-loaded words. The author tries to explore various factors that influence translator's choice of strategies in the translation process, and accordingly what effects of the translations are achieved.
Through a comparative study of the two English versions of Hongloumeng (translated by Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang and David Hawkes respectively), the research reveals that two translators adopt two different strategies, namely, the Yangs adopted a documentary, source language and culture-oriented translation in order to introduce Chinese cultural heritage, while Hawkes adopted a communicative, instrumental, target language and culture-oriented translation with a purpose of entertaining the target reader. Then the research further reveals that different characteristics represented in the two versions and the different expected functions of the TT are consistent with the skopos they set to reach.
Yet, it is hard to say which version is better since the two translations both have their own merits and advantages. As regard to the Chinese culture, the Yangs do well in keeping the cultural heritage; while concerning the target readers, Hawkes' version is more acceptable. The author arrives at a conclusion that the two versions account for the different strategies the translators take in their translation, and each translation is adequate when its purpose (skopos) is achieved.
本文以目的论原理为理论框架,分析《红楼梦》这一中国古典文学名著的两个英译本(杨宪益与戴乃迭的译本和大卫.霍克斯的译本)中文化负载词的翻译。本文运用目的论主要从五个方面即:生态文化,物质文化,社会文化,宗教文化,语言文化对《红楼梦》中文化负载词进行深入分析,说明目的论是如何影响译者翻译策略的选择,所选择的策略又如何影响了译文效果。通过对《红楼梦》两个译本的比较分析,作者发现两位译者在文化负载词的处理上采取了完全不同的翻译策略。主要表现在,杨氏的《红楼梦》译本偏向于文献式翻译,它以源语文本为中心,注重语际连贯。而霍克斯译本《石头记》则偏向于工具式翻译,它以译语文本为中心,注重语内连贯。研究进而发现,两个译本的不同特色,各自译本所达到的功能与其预期的目的是一致的。
两个译本风格迥然不同。就中国文化而言,杨的译文更忠实;而从西方读者的角度看,霍克斯的译文更易理解和接受。引用学者周钰良的评价就是“风格迥异,然各得其所”。因此作者得出的结论是:译文是否成功,翻译策略的选择是否恰当,关键是看他是否达到了自己的翻译目的。
Skopos theory, which developed from German functionalism, holds that translation is a form of transnational action based on a source text and the prime principle determining any transaction process is the purpose (skopos) of the overall transactional action. This theory had replaced "equivalence", an aged yardstick to judge the quality of translation with "adequacy", and has provided a new perspective for translation studies.
This thesis attempts to apply skopos theory and make a comparative study of the two English versions of Hongloumeng in terms of culture-loaded words. The author tries to explore various factors that influence translator's choice of strategies in the translation process, and accordingly what effects of the translations are achieved.
Through a comparative study of the two English versions of Hongloumeng (translated by Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang and David Hawkes respectively), the research reveals that two translators adopt two different strategies, namely, the Yangs adopted a documentary, source language and culture-oriented translation in order to introduce Chinese cultural heritage, while Hawkes adopted a communicative, instrumental, target language and culture-oriented translation with a purpose of entertaining the target reader. Then the research further reveals that different characteristics represented in the two versions and the different expected functions of the TT are consistent with the skopos they set to reach.
Yet, it is hard to say which version is better since the two translations both have their own merits and advantages. As regard to the Chinese culture, the Yangs do well in keeping the cultural heritage; while concerning the target readers, Hawkes' version is more acceptable. The author arrives at a conclusion that the two versions account for the different strategies the translators take in their translation, and each translation is adequate when its purpose (skopos) is achieved.
引文
[1]Bassnett,Susan.Translation Studies(3rd edition)[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[2]Bassnett,Susan and Lefevere.Constructing Cultures-Essays on Literary Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001
[3]Hawkes,David.The story of the Stone[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Press,1978
[4]Gentzler,Edwin.Contemporary Translation Theories(revised 2nd edition)[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[5]Longman Modern English Dictionary[M].1976 edition.London:Longman
[6]Newmark,Peter.A Textbook of Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[7]Nida,Eugene A.Language,Culture and Translating[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1993
[8]Nida,Eugene A.Language and culture[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001
[9]Nord,Christian.Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[10]Reiss,Katharina.Translation Criticism:The Potentials & Limitations[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[11]Snell-Hornby,Mary.Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[12]Yang Hsien-yi and Gladys Yang.A Dream of Red Mansions[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Press,1978
[13]包惠南.《文化语境与翻译》[M]北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001
[14]曹雪芹,高鹗.《红楼梦》[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1994
[15]陈福康.《中国译学理论史稿》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[16]陈宏薇,江帆.难忘的历程—《红楼梦》英译事业的描写性研究[J].中国翻译,2003(5)
[17]陈小慰.翻译功能理论的启示——对某些翻译方法的新思考[J].中国翻译,2004,(4)
[18]崔永禄.霍克斯译《红楼梦》中倾向性问题的思考[J].《外语与外语教学》,2003(5)
[19]邓炎昌,刘润清,《语言与文化》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989
[20]丁往道,周虹.《中国文化掠影》[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001
[21]范东生.翻译的本质与翻译批评的根本性任务[J].中国翻译,2004,(4)
[22]范祥涛,刘全福.论翻译选择的目的性[J].中国翻译,2002,23(6)
[23]郭建中.翻译中的文化因素:异化与归化[J].《外国语》,1998(2)
[24]胡文仲.《跨文化交际面面观》[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1999
[25]刘士聪,谷启楠.论《红楼梦》文化因素的翻译[J].中国翻译,1997(1)
[26]刘绍年.红楼梦翻译学概说[J].语言与翻译,1995(2)
[27]潘平亮.翻译目的论及其文本意识的弱化倾向[J].上海翻译,2006,(1)
[28]平洪.文本功能与翻译策略[J].中国翻译,2002,23(5)
[29]任生名.杨宪益的文学翻译思想散记[J].中国翻译,1993(4)
[30]宋子燕.论文化内涵的翻译技巧—以《红楼梦》两个英译本为例[J].《同济大学学报》,2001(6)
[31]文军,高晓鹰.功能翻译理论在文学翻译批评中的应用[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(11)
[32]肖菲.浅谈《红楼梦》两个英译本对文化词语的翻译[J].《华中师范大学学报》,2002(3)
[33]薛思亮.目的,委任与原文——费尔梅的现代翻译理论[J].国外社会科学,1997,(5)
[34]杨敏,纪爱梅.英汉旅游篇章的跨文化对比分析[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(11)
[35]袁锦祥.王佐良.翻译观之我见[J].外国语,1992(2)
[36]张春柏.翻译批评的一种语言学模式——简评《翻译批评——其潜能与局限》[J].上海科技翻译,2001,(2)
[37]张美芳.功能加忠诚——介评克里丝汀·诺德的功能翻译理论[J].外国语,2005,(1)
[38]张南峰.谈译者与委托人的沟通问题[J].中国科技翻译,1996,8(3)
[39]仲伟合,钟钰.德国的功能派翻译理论[J].中国翻译,1993,(3)
[40]周珏良.《周珏良文集》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1994
[41]周汝昌,周伦苓.《红楼梦与中国文化》[M].北京:工人出版社,1989
[42]周志瑜.类型与策略:功能主义的翻译类型学[J].中国翻译,2004,25(3)
[2]Bassnett,Susan and Lefevere.Constructing Cultures-Essays on Literary Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001
[3]Hawkes,David.The story of the Stone[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Press,1978
[4]Gentzler,Edwin.Contemporary Translation Theories(revised 2nd edition)[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[5]Longman Modern English Dictionary[M].1976 edition.London:Longman
[6]Newmark,Peter.A Textbook of Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[7]Nida,Eugene A.Language,Culture and Translating[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1993
[8]Nida,Eugene A.Language and culture[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001
[9]Nord,Christian.Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[10]Reiss,Katharina.Translation Criticism:The Potentials & Limitations[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[11]Snell-Hornby,Mary.Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[12]Yang Hsien-yi and Gladys Yang.A Dream of Red Mansions[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Press,1978
[13]包惠南.《文化语境与翻译》[M]北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001
[14]曹雪芹,高鹗.《红楼梦》[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1994
[15]陈福康.《中国译学理论史稿》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[16]陈宏薇,江帆.难忘的历程—《红楼梦》英译事业的描写性研究[J].中国翻译,2003(5)
[17]陈小慰.翻译功能理论的启示——对某些翻译方法的新思考[J].中国翻译,2004,(4)
[18]崔永禄.霍克斯译《红楼梦》中倾向性问题的思考[J].《外语与外语教学》,2003(5)
[19]邓炎昌,刘润清,《语言与文化》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989
[20]丁往道,周虹.《中国文化掠影》[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001
[21]范东生.翻译的本质与翻译批评的根本性任务[J].中国翻译,2004,(4)
[22]范祥涛,刘全福.论翻译选择的目的性[J].中国翻译,2002,23(6)
[23]郭建中.翻译中的文化因素:异化与归化[J].《外国语》,1998(2)
[24]胡文仲.《跨文化交际面面观》[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1999
[25]刘士聪,谷启楠.论《红楼梦》文化因素的翻译[J].中国翻译,1997(1)
[26]刘绍年.红楼梦翻译学概说[J].语言与翻译,1995(2)
[27]潘平亮.翻译目的论及其文本意识的弱化倾向[J].上海翻译,2006,(1)
[28]平洪.文本功能与翻译策略[J].中国翻译,2002,23(5)
[29]任生名.杨宪益的文学翻译思想散记[J].中国翻译,1993(4)
[30]宋子燕.论文化内涵的翻译技巧—以《红楼梦》两个英译本为例[J].《同济大学学报》,2001(6)
[31]文军,高晓鹰.功能翻译理论在文学翻译批评中的应用[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(11)
[32]肖菲.浅谈《红楼梦》两个英译本对文化词语的翻译[J].《华中师范大学学报》,2002(3)
[33]薛思亮.目的,委任与原文——费尔梅的现代翻译理论[J].国外社会科学,1997,(5)
[34]杨敏,纪爱梅.英汉旅游篇章的跨文化对比分析[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(11)
[35]袁锦祥.王佐良.翻译观之我见[J].外国语,1992(2)
[36]张春柏.翻译批评的一种语言学模式——简评《翻译批评——其潜能与局限》[J].上海科技翻译,2001,(2)
[37]张美芳.功能加忠诚——介评克里丝汀·诺德的功能翻译理论[J].外国语,2005,(1)
[38]张南峰.谈译者与委托人的沟通问题[J].中国科技翻译,1996,8(3)
[39]仲伟合,钟钰.德国的功能派翻译理论[J].中国翻译,1993,(3)
[40]周珏良.《周珏良文集》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1994
[41]周汝昌,周伦苓.《红楼梦与中国文化》[M].北京:工人出版社,1989
[42]周志瑜.类型与策略:功能主义的翻译类型学[J].中国翻译,2004,25(3)