社会符号学视角下《长恨歌》三个英译本的对比研究

论文摘要

白居易的代表作《长恨歌》,从作品主题,语言形式,内容表达和艺术特质都有着极高的艺术价值。随着文化交流的深入,《长恨歌》的翻译及其翻译研究也得到了进一步发展。许多学者对该诗不同译本进行了欣赏与评价,其研究多从美学观点出发。本文作者试图从社会符号学意义和功能视角出发,对翟理斯,杨宪益、戴乃迭夫妇和许渊冲的三个《长恨歌》英译本进行对比研究,采用陈宏薇教授提出的“意义相符,功能相似”社会符号学翻译法标准对三个译本进行重新评价。在社会符号学翻译法看来,翻译作为社会文化条件下两种符号之间的转换,是一种跨语言和跨文化的交流。语言被视为人类所使用的各种符号系统中最全面,最复杂的一种系统,意义和功能是语言符号或符号文本所具备的固有特征。翻译就是翻译意义,意义的传递意味着功能的实现。意义划分采用莫里斯的符号意义三分法,即指称意义,言内意义和语用意义。指称意义是符号与其所指对象之间关系所体现的意义;言内意义是符号相互之间关系所产生的意义;语用意义是反映符号和解释者之间关系的意义。功能划分采用纽马克的功能分法,分别是信息功能、表情功能、祈使功能、美感功能、酬应功能和元语言功能。就译本评价而言,意义和功能在目的语中再现的程度决定了译文质量的高低。根据“意义相符,功能相似”标准,本文客观分析和评价了三个译本对《长恨歌》社会符号学意义和功能的再现。三个译本在指称意义及对应的信息功能,言内和语用意义及对应的表达和美感功能再现上尚有不完善之处,但是不足以掩盖各自的优点。在比较研究的过程中,对不同译本应该摈弃非好即坏的二元对立观念而去发掘这种翻译现象背后的理据。本文认为,由于原语文化和译语文化之间的差异,翻译时完全等量再现原文意义及功能是不切实际的。变通和补偿手段如加注、增益、视点转换和概略化等手段在体现最重要意义和最突出功能的传译中是不可或缺的,文本类型再现取决于意义和功能的实现程度,译者风格也得以从社会符号学视角重新考虑。基于三个译本的对比研究,作者认为就《长恨歌》翻译而言,应该取散体翻译之长,补韵律体翻译之短,从而成功地传递原有意义并实现类似的功能。社会符号学途径下的译本对比分析因其全面性而具有很大优势,社会符号学翻译法的标准给翻译批评提供了一个全面、客观的视域,同时对翻译理论和实践也有一定指导意义。

论文目录

• Acknowledgements
• Abstract
• 摘要
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 Research background
• 1.2 Research methodology
• 1.3 Research significance
• 1.4 Organization of thesis
• Chapter 2 Literature Review
• 2.1 Introduction to Bai Juyi and Chang Hen Ge
• 2.1.1 Brief introduction to Bai Juyi
• 2.1.2 Background and status of Chang Hen Ge in literature
• 2.2 Previous study on translation of Chang Hen Ge
• 2.3 Retrospection on sociosemiotic studies
• 2.3.1 From semiotics to sociosemiotics
• 2.3.2 Sociosemiotic studies abroad
• 2.3.3 Sociosemiotic studies at home
• Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework: Sociosemiotic Approach to Translation
• 3.1 Basic notions of sociosemiotic approach
• 3.1.1 Meanings
• 3.1.2 Functions
• 3.1.3 Text type
• 3.2 Criterion of sociosemiotic approach to translation
• 3.3 Advantages of sociosemiotic approach to translation
• 3.4 Summary
• Chapter 4 Sociosemiotic Reproduction of Meanings and Functions in Three Versions of Chang Hen Ge
• 4.1 Informative function in referential meaning of the three versions
• 4.1.1 Informative function achieved in referential meaning with full correspondence
• 4.1.2 Informative function achieved in referential meaning with partial correspondence
• 4.1.3 Informative function achieved in referential meaning with non-correspondence
• 4.2 Expressive and aesthetic functions in linguistic meaning of the three versi
• 4.2.1 Expressive and aesthetic functions in linguistic meaning at lexical leve
• 4.2.1.1 Simile
• 4.2.1.2 Metonymy
• 4.2.1.3 Hyperbole
• 4.2.2 Expressive and aesthetic functions in linguistic meaning at phonological level
• 4.2.2.1 Metre
• 4.2.2.2 End Rhyme
• 4.2.2.3 Alliteration & Assonance
• 4.2.3 Expressive and aesthetic functions in linguistic meaning at syntactic level
• 4.2.3.1 Antithesis
• 4.2.3.2 Anadiplosis
• 4.3 Expressive and aesthetic functions in pragmatic meaning of the three versi
• 4.3.1 Expressive function in pragmatic meaning at affective level
• 4.3.1.1 Irony
• 4.3.1.2 Euphemism
• 4.3.2 Aesthetic function in pragmatic meaning at associative level
• 4.4 Summary
• Chapter 5 Sociosemiotic Interpretation of Comparative Study on Three Versions of Chang Hen Ge
• 5.1 Sociosemiotic methods in translation process
• 5.1.1 Literal translation with annotation
• 5.1.2 Contextual amplification
• 5.1.3 Generalization
• 5.1.4 Shift of perspective
• 5.2 Sociosemiotic reconsideration of style concerning translation result
• 5.3 Reproduction of text type based on sociosemiotic meanings and functions
• 5.4 Summary
• Chapter 6 Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Appendix