中国的外国文学翻译的汉语句法异化现象 ——以《飘》的两个中译本为个案

论文摘要

翻译理论中的归化翻译方法与异化翻译方法之争,可谓由来已久。其开端在西方可追溯到公元前一世纪,在中国则可从东汉算起。虽然准确地说,当时争论的焦点是集中在意译还是逐字翻译的问题上,而这两个概念与归化异化并不完全等同,但它们之间确实存在千丝万缕的联系。至于归化异化概念的明确提出,则要等到二十世纪末韦努蒂《论译者的隐身》一书的出现了。韦努蒂在书中除明确提出这两个概念之外,更旗帜鲜明地提倡在以后的翻译中采用异化的翻译方法。在中国近两千年的翻译史中,归化翻译一直占据主要地位,虽然鲁迅早在20世纪初就提出了“直译”的主张,但直到刘英凯的“归化——翻译的歧路”一文的出现,异化翻译方法才逐渐受到学界的重视,而2002年孙致礼先生发表的“中国的文学翻译:从归化趋向异化”一文更是明确提出,21世纪中国的文学翻译将主要采取异化法。自此,异化翻译法越来越受到学界的推崇。今天,绝大多数学者都同意从源语到目的语在文化层面采取异化的翻译方法,但仍坚持语言层面的归化翻译方法。然而这并不一定正确。本文正试图以英中文学翻译为研究对象,证明在中国的文学翻译中句法层面的异化翻译法既是事实,也是必要。论文首先回顾中外历史上归化和异化翻译法的定义及两者之间的争论。接着,论文通过对主客观因素的论证及历史实践的证明来说明中国文学翻译中确实存在异化的现象。这种现象不只反映在文化层面,也同样反映在句法层面。许多学者同意前一观点却质疑后一观点。但既然文化内涵是通过文章来体现的,而任何类型的文章均由句子组成,那么一篇文章的句法结构当然会以某种方式反映出其文化内涵。因此,如果中国的文学翻译在文化层面采用异化的翻译手法,那么其句法层面也就不可避免地同样需要异化。在理论上阐明这一观点后,本文将通过实例来对这一观点加以证明。本文选取了美国作家玛格丽特·米切尔的小说《飘》的两个中译本作为例子来进行证明。本文选取的是傅东华的译本及陈良廷等人的译本。由于傅译本最初翻译于1940年,而陈译本则出现于1990年,比傅译本大概晚了五十年,因此这两个译本之间的对比在一定程度上确能说明论文的观点。最后,本文将得出结论,认为在中国的外国语文学翻译中确实存在句法层面的异化现象。但这一现象并不意味着绝对的采用异化翻译法。本文所讨论的仅是在当代中国的外国文学翻译中,归化异化两者之间更倾向于何种方法。

论文目录

• Abstract
• 摘要
• Introduction
• 0.1 Objectives of the Research
• 0.2 The Research Methodology
• 0.3 Significance of the Research
• 0.4 The Structure of the Thesis
• Chapter One Domesticatioin and Foreignization
• 1.1 The Definitions of Domestication and Foreignization
• 1.2 Controversies between Foreignization and Domestication
• 1.2.1 Controversies in the West
• 1.2.1.1 In Ancient Times
• th and the 18^th Centuries'>1.2.1.2 In the 17^th and the 18^thCenturies
• 1.2.1.3 Inthe 19th Century
• 1.2.1.4 In the 20th Century
• 1.2.2 Controversies in China
• 1.2.2.1 The Translation of Buddhist Scriptures
• 1.2.2.2 Around the May Fourth Movement
• 1.2.2.3 After the Establishment of the PRC
• 1.3 Comments on Domestication and Foreignization
• Chapter Two Foreignization in Literary Translation in China
• 2.1 Objective Factors
• 2.1.1 Social Factors
• 2.1.2 Cultural Factors
• 2.1.3 The Reader's Role
• 2.2 Subjective Factors
• 2.2.1 The Translator's Role
• 2.3 Historical Practice
• 2.3.1 Before The Implementation of The Reform and Opening Policy
• 2.3.2 After the Implementation of The Reform and Opening Policy
• Chapter Three Foreignization on the Syntactical Level in Literary Translation in China
• 3.1 The Necessity of Foreignization on the Syntactical Level
• 3.2 Differences in Syntax between English and Chinese
• 3.3 The Birth and Development of Foreignization on the Syntactical Level
• 3.4 The Contents of Foreignization on the Syntactical Level
• 3.4.1 The Use of Indefinite Articles
• 3.4.2 The Change of Subjects
• 3.4.3 The Addition of Linking Verbs
• 3.4.4 The Passive Sentence Pattern
• 3.4.5 The Expansion of Sentences
• 3.4.5.1 The Long Attributive
• 3.4.5.2 The Parenthesis
• 3.4.5.3 The Sentence Patterns
• Chapter Four A Case Study of Two Chinese Versions Of Gone with the Wind
• 4.1 Introduction to Gone with the Wind
• 4.2 Introduction to the Two Chinese Versions
• 4.2.1 Fu Donghua's Version
• 4.2.1.1 Domestication in Fu's Version
• 4.2.2 Chen Liangting's Version
• 4.2.2.1 Foreignization in Chen's Translation
• 4.3 Comparison between the Two Versions
• 4.3.1 The Use of Indefinite Articles
• 4.3.2 The Change of Subjects
• 4.3.3 The Addition of Linking Verbs
• 4.3.4 The Passive Sentences
• 4.3.5 The Expansion of Sentences
• 4.3.5.1 The Long Attributive
• 4.3.5.2 The Parenthesis
• 4.3.5.3 The Sentence Pattern
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Acknowledgements