A Comparative Study of Two Chinese Versions of Gone with the Wind from Social-Cultural Context Perspective

论文摘要

从20世纪70年代晚期起,西方翻译研究有了迅猛的发展,出现了文化转向。一些学派提出了新的理论和研究方法,其中代表性的有:以Even-Zohar和Gideon Toury为代表的多元系统理论、以Andre Lefevere为代表的操控学派理论（翻译研究学派）及以Hans Vermeer和Christlane Nord为代表的功能主义理论。这几个学派虽在其研究领域各有侧重和创新,但他们的共同点是:把翻译看作是特定的环境（社会的、文化的、历史的）下进行的动态过程;开始从宏观的角度来探索影响翻译的外在因素,而不仅仅停留在语言学的角度。本文以操控学派和勒菲弗尔的理论为框架,以美国小说《飘》（玛格丽特·米歇尔著）的两个不同时期的中译本为研究对象,采用描述性的比较分析法,旨在揭示翻译是特定社会文化语境下的产物。本文从社会文化语境的角度去分析和研究Gone with the Wind的两个中译本（1940年傅东华所译的《飘》和1990年戴侃、李野光、庄绎传合译的《飘》）,并回答下面三个问题:为什么这部小说在五十年后被重译?所选取的两个中译本在那些方面不同?哪些原因和因素造成了这些不同?全文共分五章。第一章简单介绍了该论文的研究背景、研究目的、研究问题及研究方法和主要理论框架以及研究意义。第二章是文献综述,也是全文的理论基础。第一部分回顾了传统的翻译标准并指出它们的不足:未能从宏观的角度去分析翻译。第二部分详细介绍了翻译研究中的文化转向及相关的学派和理论,着重介绍了操控学派和勒菲弗尔的理论:翻译是一种重写,它受主流意识形态和诗学的制约,操控文学在一定的社会以一定的方式发挥功能。意识形态关注的是社会应该或者可以是怎样的,而诗学则关注文学应该或者说可以是怎样的。第三部分回顾了一些对《飘》的几个中译本的评价和研究,主要是对傅东华译本的评价。第三章是个案研究。首先简要介绍小说及其中文译本,然后着重从内容和语言风格两个大层面并结合大量翔实有力的例子对两个译本进行比较,找出不同点。第四章对产生这两个不同译本的社会、文化和历史语境进行详细的分析,这也是本文的重点。基于前面的比较与分析,在第五章,作者得出全文的结论:翻译是特定环境下的动态活动,文学翻译具有时代性,每一个译本都有其形成的特定社会文化语境,人们应用发展的、辨证的眼光从宏观的角度去评价译作。

论文目录

• 中文摘要
• Abstract
• Acknowledgements
• Contents
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 Academic Background of the Research
• 1.2 Major Theoretical Framework Used in the Research
• 1.3 Purpose of the Research and Research Questions
• 1.4 Methodology
• 1.5 Research Significance
• Chapter 2 Literature Review
• 2.1 Traditional Translation Criteria
• 2.1.1 Linguistic Approaches
• 2.1.2 Literary Approaches
• 2.2 The Cultural Turn in Translation Studies
• 2.2.1 Even Zohar's Polysystem Theory
• 2.2.2 Gideon Toury and His Theories
• 2.2.3 The Manipulation School and Its Development
• 2.2.4 Andre Lefevere and the Development of His Theories
• 2.2.4.1 Lefevere's Theory of Translation as a Form of Rewriting
• 2.2.4.2 Lefevere's Theory about Ideology and Poetics
• 2.3 The Evaluation and Criticism on the Chinese Versions of Gone with the Wind
• Chapter 3 A Case Study Comparison of Two Chinese Versions of Gone with the Wind
• 3.1 Brief Introduction to the Novel and Its Chinese Versions
• 3.1.1 Introduction to the Novel
• 3.1.2 Introduction to Different Chinese Versions
• 3.1.3 Reasons for Choosing Fu's Version and Dai's Version for Comparison
• 3.1.3.1 Long Time Interval
• 3.1.3.2 Distinctive Features of the Two Versions
• 3.2 A Comparative Study of the Two Versions
• 3.2.1 Differences in Terms of Content Between the Two Versions
• 3.2.1.1 Abridgement versus Integrity
• 3.2.1.2 Rewriting of the Content versus Faithful Rendering
• 3.2.1.3 Supplement versus Non-supplement
• 3.2.2 Differences in Terms of Language Style Between the Two Versions
• 3.2.2.1 Comparison on the Syntactic Level
• 3.2.2.2 Comparison on the Lexical Level
• Chapter 4.Analysis of the Reasons for the Differences of the Two Chinese Versions
• 4.1 The Social and Cultural Context of Fu's version
• 4.1.1 The Social Background of Fu's Version
• 4.1.2 The Special Ideology in Shanghai in 1940
• 4.1.3 The General Poetic Tendency in 1940
• 4.1.4 The Influence of Traditional Poetics upon Fu's Version
• 4.2 The Social and Cultural Context of Dai's Version
• 4.2.1 The Dominant Ideology in China around 1990
• 4.2.2 New Poetic Requirement in 1990
• 4.2.3 The Fourth Translation Wave and the Retranslation Boom in the 1980s
• 4.3 The Influence of Ideology on Translators' Subjectivity
• 4.4 Readers' Aesthetic Expectations and Requirements of the Two Times
• 4.4.1 Readers in 1940
• 4.4.2 Readers in 1990
• 4.5 Different Translation Purposes of the Two Versions
• 4.6 Different Translation Strategies in the Two Versions
• 4.6.1 The Dominant Translation Strategy from the 1870s to the End of 1970s:Domestication
• 4.6.2 The Dominant Translation Strategy in Chinese Literary Translation since the 1980s
• 4.7 Language Change During the Two Periods
• Chapter 5 Conclusion
• Bibliography