Domestication: The First Choice in Literary Translation ——A Comparative Study of Two Chinese Versions of Tess

论文摘要

自从“归化”、“异化”两种策略在翻译界提出以来,争论就从未停止过。目前在众多讨论“归化”、“异化”的文章中,多数主张“异化”是翻泽的主要策略。但本文认为,在有别于其它类型(如科技翻译和应用文翻译)的文学翻译中,“归化”应作为主要的策略,即归化是文学翻译的第一选择。本文以奈达的读者反应论为理论框架,结合张谷若与孙法理翻译的两个《苔丝》中译本的对比,从文学翻译的标准和任务两个角度论证了本文的观点。第一章,序言。在阐述了学术上关于“异归、化化”的争论后,说明本文研究的目的是论证“‘归化’是文学翻译的第一选择”这一观点。之后作者提出了研究的问题,陈述了论文的结构,阐明了研究的意义。第二章,“奈达的读者反应论”。本章首先回顾了奈达之前中西方译论对读者的关照,从而说明奈达的读者反应论有其深厚的理论和实践基础。然后谈论了奈达的读者反应论。得出奈达的读者反应论是对中西传统译论中对读者关照的发展的结论。之后回顾了奈达的读者反映论在中西方的影响。最后阐明奈达的读者反应论可以作为翻译标准的六个原因:(1)奈达的读者反应论是以原作为基础的;(2)奈达的读者反应论不会导致极端归化与文化帝国主义;(3)奈达的读者反应论不像接受美学和文学批评领域的“读者反应”那样主观,所以可用作翻译的标准;(4)奈达的读者反应论没有忽视原作的风格;(5)奈达的读者反应论把一般读者和专家的反应结合了起来,所以更具权威性;(6)奈达的读者反应论不仅对比了两个文本,而且对比了两个文本读者的反应,所以更客观、更科学。第三章,归化、异化。本章阐明了归化、异化的定义,陈述了归化、异化在中西方的争论。之后得出结论:尽管译者们都认为归化、异化都是文学翻译不可缺少的方法,但至于哪一种应是主要策略,学者中间依然存在分歧。第四章,从文学翻译的标准谈归化、异化。本章回顾了中西方关于文学翻译标准的论述,认为奈达的读者反应论是对中西文学翻译标准的发展,并以此为衡量标准,对比了《苔丝》的两个中译本。正是基于“归化能使目的语读者产生和源语读者相同或相似的反应”的原因,所以归化应是文学翻译的第一选择。第五章,从文学翻译的任务谈归化、异化。本章从传达原作的意义,移植原作的情感,再现原作的风格,促进文化交流这些文学翻译的任务入手,举例分析了两个中译本,认为归化能更好地完成文学翻译的任务,更容易使目的语读者产生和源语读者相同或相似的反应,所以归化应是文学翻译的第一选择。第六章,结论。在前五章分析的基础上,总结了归化是文学翻译的第一选择的原因。但作者并不认为异化在文学翻译中不必要,为了传递外国文化,在保证易懂和能被目的语读者接受的前提下,应该适当采取异化。同时,也要避免极端归化。

论文目录

• Abstract （in Chinese）
• Abstract （in English）
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter One: Introduction
• 1.1 Research Background
• 1.2 Research Purpose and Research Questions
• 1.3 Layout of the Thesis
• 1.4 The Significance of the Research in Practice and Theory
• Chapter Two: Readers' Response Theory of Nida
• 2.1 The Consideration of Readers before Nida
• 2.1.1 The Consideration of Readers in China before Nida
• 2.1.2 The Consideration of Readers in the West before Nida
• 2.2 Readers' Response Theory of Nida
• 2.3 The Influence of Readers' Response Theory of Nida in China and the West
• 2.4 Readers' Response Theory of Nida Can Be Used as the Translation Criterion
• Chapter Three: Domestication and Foreignization
• 3.1 The Definitions of Domestication and Foreignization
• 3.2 The Dispute over Domestication and Foreignization
• 3.2.1 The Dispute over Domestication and Foreignization in China
• 3.2.2 The Dispute over Domestication and Foreignization in the West
• Chapter Four: A Research on Domestication and Foreignization from the Perspective of the Criteria for Literary Translation
• 4.1 The Criteria for Literary Translation
• 4.1.1 The Criteria for Literary Translation in China
• 4.1.2 The Criteria for Literary Translation in the West
• 4.2 A Comparison of the Two Chinese Versions from the Perspective of the Criteria for Literary Translation
• Chapter Five: A Research on Domestication and Foreignization from the Perspective of the Tasks of Literary Translation
• 5.1 A Comparison of the Two Chinese Versions from the Perspective of Translating the Meaning of the Original
• 5.2 A Comparison of the Two Chinese Versions from the Perspective of Transmitting the Emotion of the Original
• 5.3 A Comparison of the Two Chinese Versions from the Perspective of Reproducing the Style of the Original
• 5.3.1 A Comparison of the Two Chinese Versions from the Perspective of Translating the Wessex Dialect in the Original
• 5.3.2 A Comparison of the Two Chinese Versions from the Perspective of Translating the Long Sentences in the Original
• 5.3.3 A Comparison of the Two Chinese Versions from the Perspective of Translating the Description of the Natural Scenery in the Original
• 5.4 A Comparison of the Two Chinese Versions from the Perspective of Promoting Cultural Communication
• Chapter Six: Conclusion
• Works Cited