碩士學(xué)位論文-從闡釋學(xué)視角看《名利場》兩種譯本的譯者主體性.doc

學(xué)校代碼：10254密 級：論文編號： 上海海事大學(xué)SHANGHAI MARITIME UNIVERSITY碩 士 學(xué) 位 論 文MASTER DISSERTATION論文題目： 從闡釋學(xué)視角看 名利場兩種譯本的譯者主體性 學(xué)科專業(yè)： 外國語言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語言學(xué) 作者姓名： 張 鋆 指導(dǎo)教師： 韓忠華 教授 完成日期： 二一年五月 論文獨(dú)創(chuàng)性聲明本論文是我個人在導(dǎo)師指導(dǎo)下進(jìn)行的研究工作及取得的研究成果。論文中除了特別加以標(biāo)注和致謝的地方外，不包含其他人或其他機(jī)構(gòu)已經(jīng)發(fā)表或撰寫過的研究成果。其他同志對本研究的啟發(fā)和所做的貢獻(xiàn)均己在論文中做了明確的聲明并表示了謝意。 作者簽名： 日期： 論文使用授權(quán)聲明本人同意上海海事大學(xué)有關(guān)保留、使用學(xué)位論文的規(guī)定，即：學(xué)校有權(quán)送交論文復(fù)印件，允許論文被查閱和借閱；學(xué)校可以上網(wǎng)公布論文的全部內(nèi)容或部分內(nèi)容，可以采用影印、縮印或其他手段保存論文。保密的論文在解密后遵守此規(guī)定。作者簽名： 導(dǎo)師簽名： 日期： A Discussion on Translators Subjectivity from the Perspective of HermeneuticsBased on Two Chinese Versions of Vanity FairBy Zhang JunUnder the Supervision ofProfessor Han ZhonghuaA Thesis Submitted to the College of Foreign Languages ofShanghai Maritime Universityin Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the MA DegreeShanghai Maritime UniversityMay, 2010AcknowledgementsAt the moment when I complete the thesis, I can not help expressing my deep and great appreciation for those who helped me and gave me kind instructions on conceiving this thesis.First and foremost, I owe a great deal to Professor Han Zhonghua, my supervisor, for his patient tutorship, invaluable suggestions and guidance. It is quite fair for me to say that this thesis can never be achieved without his generous support and professional comments. I am extremely grateful not only for his inspiring encouragement but also for his objective criticism, which helped me a lot in improving this thesis. During the process of working on this thesis, I was once again deeply impressed by his earnest academic attitude, incisive viewpoints as well as his inexhaustible enthusiasm in academic study, which set a model for my future research.I also want to express special thankfulness to Professor Wang Dawei, Professor Zheng Lixin, Professor Weng Fengxiang and many other distinguished scholars in my university, for their instructional lectures, the influence of which will be felt all my life.Last but not least, it is necessary for me to express my sincere gratitude to my parents, some of my relatives, my classmates, and my friends. I thank them from bottom of my heart for their understanding and permanent support throughout my academic study. 摘 要名利場是十九世紀(jì)英國批判現(xiàn)實(shí)主義作家薩克雷(William Makepeace Thackeray 1811-1863)的成名之作，“也是他生平著作里最經(jīng)得起時間考驗(yàn)的杰作”(楊絳, 1997)。在名利場的諸多中譯本中，女翻譯家楊必的譯本一向深受讀者青睞，也是難得看到的佳譯。事隔多年后，湖南師范大學(xué)彭長江教授面臨著更多、更大的困難重譯了名利場，但其措辭及語言風(fēng)格方面都與“楊譯”大不相同。隨著名利場中譯本的不斷增多，對不同譯本的品評文章也源源不斷。然而，評論者多集中于語言層面的分析，從文化空缺或“歸化、異化”上入手，但從譯者及其譯者主體性角度出發(fā)的研究至今仍較少見。譯者的主體性在翻譯史上經(jīng)歷了一個由朦朧到凸顯的過程。20世紀(jì)70年代以來，西方翻譯理論出現(xiàn)了“文化轉(zhuǎn)向”，運(yùn)用后結(jié)構(gòu)主義理論對文本的意義進(jìn)行闡述。譯者的主體性及其在翻譯過程中所起的主體性作用逐漸受到西方翻譯理論界的廣泛關(guān)注，我國對譯者主體性的研究也在日益加深。譯者主體性在國內(nèi)外已得到了應(yīng)有的重視。闡釋學(xué) （Hermeneutics） 是 20 世紀(jì) 60 年代后盛行于西方的哲學(xué)和文化思潮。任何翻譯都由理解開始，闡釋學(xué)理論正是基于對意義的理解與闡釋的一門學(xué)科。翻譯闡釋學(xué)派強(qiáng)調(diào)翻譯和理解之間密不可分的關(guān)系，對理解的作用和方式進(jìn)行不同的闡釋。翻譯活動也從傳統(tǒng)的原作者“獨(dú)白”和無限度的讀者闡釋，走向了原作者、文本譯者、譯文與譯文讀者之間的積極對話。在翻譯的過程中，譯者處于整個對話活動的中心位置, 扮演著讀者和譯文作者的雙重角色。闡釋學(xué)視角給翻譯研究注入了新的活力，帶來了新的研究視角。鑒于譯者的主體地位在當(dāng)今文化語境下已得到越來越多的關(guān)注，本文擬運(yùn)用闡釋學(xué)相關(guān)理論，重新審視和研究譯者的主體性作用。本文擬以翻譯闡釋學(xué)理論為基礎(chǔ)，以薩克雷的名作名利場的兩個權(quán)威中文譯本為語料，運(yùn)用斯坦納的“翻譯的四步驟”，伽達(dá)默爾的“偏見”、“視域融合”等闡釋學(xué)基本觀點(diǎn)，通過實(shí)證分析，對薩克雷的名利場的兩個中文譯本進(jìn)行對比研究，藉以考察譯者主體性在文學(xué)翻譯過程中的表現(xiàn)。 本文共分五章。第一章對薩克雷，其名著名利場及名利場的兩個權(quán)威版的中譯本做簡要的介紹。第二章對“譯者主體性”問題和“闡釋學(xué)”理論及相關(guān)的研究現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行較為詳細(xì)的介紹和說明，闡明什么是“譯者主體性”、“闡釋學(xué)”經(jīng)歷了怎樣的發(fā)展行程，以及它是如何與“譯者主體性”相結(jié)合的。第三章和第四章是本文的重點(diǎn)。這兩章以名利場的兩個不同中文譯本為案例，以從中所選取的大量文本實(shí)例為實(shí)證，運(yùn)用闡釋學(xué)的核心理論對“譯者主體性”進(jìn)行深入和充分的討論。其中，第三章以喬治斯坦納的“翻譯四步驟”理論為依據(jù)，對名利場的兩中譯本的譯者主體性的發(fā)揮進(jìn)行對比分析與關(guān)照，即譯者在經(jīng)歷 “信賴”、“侵入”、“吸收”和“補(bǔ)償”這四個翻譯步驟的過程中所體現(xiàn)出的譯者主體性。第四章，根據(jù)伽達(dá)默爾的“視域融合”理論，從譯本本身的不同特征，如譯者的翻譯策略、語言風(fēng)格、藝術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及文化傳真度等，探討名利場兩中譯本的譯者主體性。第五章為結(jié)論，即：在闡釋學(xué)理論的視域下，翻譯過程應(yīng)當(dāng)理解為譯者能動的闡釋原文的過程，譯者主體性的發(fā)揮具有其合法性和一定的局限性。傳統(tǒng)譯論中有關(guān)譯者的理論很難指導(dǎo)譯者在翻譯實(shí)踐中充分調(diào)動自己的主體性，而結(jié)合闡釋學(xué)相關(guān)理論對譯者主體性及其實(shí)際作用進(jìn)行研究，則能夠較好地解決這個問題。本文以闡釋學(xué)理論與傳統(tǒng)翻譯理論相結(jié)合作為立論基礎(chǔ)，旨在能從闡釋學(xué)角度出發(fā)，為名利場的兩個權(quán)威中文譯本的譯者主體性的解讀，提供一個較新的視角。筆者希望本文能具有一定的理論意義，并能為文學(xué)翻譯研究和翻譯實(shí)踐提供一點(diǎn)兒切實(shí)可行的參考。關(guān)鍵詞：名利場; 譯者主體性; 闡釋學(xué); 翻譯四步驟; 視域融合 ABSTRACTWilliam Makepeace Thackeray, one of the greatest critical realist writers of England in the 19th century, reached his peak of popularity with the publication of his masterpiece Vanity Fair. It is “his most famous work in his literary career, which can certainly stand the test of time,” claimed Yang Jiang in 1997. Among the Chinese versions of Vanity Fair, the most widely acclaimed one is translated by Yang Bi, a well-known female scholar in China, and her version, regarded as the most authoritative one, has enjoyed great popularity among the Chinese readers ever since its publication. Confronted with more challenging difficulties though, Professor Peng Changjiang from Hunan Normal University re-translated the novel a few decades later, making innovations in terms of linguistic performances, rhetorical properties, and so on.As the number of the Chinese versions of Vanity Fair grows, articles commenting on different translations accordingly are coming forth endlessly. However, most of the comments and researches concerned are focused on the level of linguistic aspects, on “foreignization or domestication”，or on the basis of the cultural gap. It is still rare to see discussions and researches on comparison between the different versions from the perspective of translators functions or translators subjectivity. As we all know, the development of the theory of translators subjectivity underwent various stages from being obscure to its being on the foreground of today. Since 1970s, translation theories in the western world began to take a “Cultural Turn”. There has been a tendency of applying post-structuralism to the interpretation of texts. As a result, the theory of translators subjectivity and its leading role in the process of translating has aroused great concern among the translation theorists. Scholars in China have also paid increasing attention to this theory. At present translators subjectivity as a translation theory has achieved its deserving stature.Hermeneutics as a philosophical and cultural ideology was prevalent in the West in the late 1960s. Since any translation begins with the understanding, Hermeneutics is exactly such a branch of learning that is established on the basis of understanding and hermeneutical exegesis and interpretation of the textual and contextual meanings of the texts in question. Hermeneutics, as viewed from the aspect of the translation theory, emphasizes that there is an inseparable relationship between translation and comprehension. It illustrates the how and the why understanding and interpretation occurs from quite a different perspective. Thus the perception of the translating process begins to change from the writers own monologue and the targeted readers infinitive interpretation to an active dialogue between the original writer, the translator, the translation and the reader. In the light of the hermeneutical view, the translator becomes the interlocutor playing the double-role as both the reader of the source language text and the writer of the target language text. Hermeneutics, to some extent, has injected new vitality into the study of translation theories from a brand new perspective.In view of the situation in which more and more emphases are placed on translators subjectivity, this thesis aims at conducting a re-investigation into the theory of translators subjectivity from the perspective of Hermeneutics. By way of applying some core concepts of Hermeneutics, such as George Steiners “Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation Motion Theory”, and Gadamers Hermeneutic theories, including his theories of “Fusion of Horizons”, “Prejudice”, “Fore-Understanding”, and through the adoption of large quantities of factual instances taken from the two authoritative Chinese versions of William Makepeace Thackerays masterpiece Vanity Fair chosen for the intended comparative study, the author of this thesis aims to carry out a tentative analysis on translators subjectivity in the act of translating literary works.The whole thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter One is a brief introduction to Vanity Fair，its original writer William Makepeace Thackeray, as well as to the two translators and their translations. Chapter Two serves as the theoretical frame offering a detailed study of relevant theories of translators subjectivity and Hermeneutics. It involves the histories of the two theories and how Hermeneutics is applied to the study of translators subjectivity. Chapters Three and Four function as the core part of the thesis, aiming at carrying out ample and in-depth analyses on a great wealth of examples taken from the two Chinese translation versions being discussed from hermeneutical perspective. Chapter Three deals with the comparison between the two Chinese versions with a view to bringing forth translators subjectivity by applying George Steiners Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation Motion Theory, which explores into translators subjectivity embodied in the whole translation process that comprises the four necessary steps, namely “trust”, “aggression”, “incorporation” and “compensation”. Chapter Four brings forth the presentation of translators subjectivity as displayed in the two Chinese versions from different aspects on the basis of Gadamers “Fusion of Horizons” Theory, which concerns translators strategy and approaches, their linguistic performance, artistic style and the degree of fidelity in cultural transmission. A conclusion is drawn at the end of the thesis, that is, translation, from the perspective of Hermeneutics, should be viewed as an active understanding and interpretation of the actual meaning of the original writing. Translators subjectivity in the act of translation is legitimate although there are certain limitations.The traditional theory of translation can hardly activate the subjectivity of the translator into full play in their translating practice; nevertheless, when combined with the relevant theories of Hermeneutics, we may have ways to solve the problem. The aim of this thesis is to provide some new approaches to the understanding of the mechanism and the legitimate position of translators subjectivity as displayed in the two authoritative Chinese versions of the classical work of Vanity Fair on the basis of the theory of Hermeneutics. It is the proper writers hope that this thesis can be of certain theoretical value with its supply of the reliable and pragmatic reference to the study and practice of translating literary works.KEYWORDS: Vanity Fair, translators subjectivity, Hermeneutics, Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation Motion, Fusion of HorizonsVIICONTENTSPreface1Chapter Introduction41.1 An Introduction to Vanity Fair and its two Selected Chinese Versions41.1.1 A Summary of the NovelVanity Fair41.1.2 The two Complete Chinese Versions and Their Translators51.1.2.1 Yang Bis Translated Version of Vanity Fair51.1.2.2 Peng Changjiangs Translated Version of Vanity Fair71.2 Research Methodology81.3 Research Significance81.4 Layout of the Thesis9Chapter Hermeneutics and Translators Subjectivity102.1 Hermeneutics102.1.1 Origin and Development of Hermeneutics102.1.1.1 Origin of Hermeneutics102.1.1.2 Development of Hermeneutics112.1.2 Some Core Concepts of Modern Hermeneutics122.2 Subjectivity of Translator132.2.1 Definition of Translators Subjectivity132.2.2 Subjectivity of Translator from Invisibility to Visibility142.2.3 Distinction Between Translators Subjectivity and Translation Subjectivity.162.3 Enlightenment from Hermeneutics on Translators Subjectivity172.3.1 Validity of Translators Subjectivity from the perspective of Hermeneutics172.3.1.1 George Steiners Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation Motion Theory and its Theoretical Support to the Validity of Translators Subjectivity172.3.1.2 Gadamers Hermeneutic Theory, Including His Theories of “Fusion of Horizons”, “Prejudice”, “Fore-Understanding”, and Their Support to the Validity of Translators Subjectivity202.3.2 Avoidance of Excessive “Prejudice” Limitation of Translators Subjectivity22Chapter A Comparative Study of Translators Subjectivity Based on the Two Chinese Versions of Vanity Fairfrom the Perspective of “Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation Motion Theory”243.1 Translators Trust253.1.1 Translators Cultural Background253.1.2 Translators Translation Motive273.2 Translators Aggression293.2.1 Translators Aggression in Different Personality293.2.2 Translators Aggression as Different Gender313.2.3 Translators Understanding and Judgment of the Source Text343.3 Translators Incorporation353.3.1 Linguistic Absorption of the Style in the Original Work353.3.2 Aesthetic Acceptance of the Original Work373.3.3 Absorption of Cultural Consciousness of the Original Work393.4 Translators Compensation/Restitution403.4.1 Discrepancy Between Different Cultures and Losses in Translation403.4.2 Compensation by Choice of Words423.4.3 Compensation by Sentence Rearrangement433.4.4 Re-creation of Image of the Characters and Preservation of Figures of Speech46Chapter Presentation of Translators Subjectivity Based on the Two Chinese Versions of Vanity Fairfrom the Perspective of Gadamers Theory of “Fusion of Horizons”514.1 Translators Strategy and Approaches524.2 Fusion of Language Style584.3 Degree of Fidelity in Cultural Transmission63Conclusion69Bibliography72PrefaceIn the development of translation studies, translators subjectivity has undergone such a process of change from that of being invisible to that of being widely cognizant. It was not so conspicuous among the whole academic circle until the 1970s when the “Cultural Turn” came into being. From that time on, translators subjectivity has been given increasing attention on the part of both the translation theorists and translation practitioners.Vanity Fair, the renowned novel written by William Makepeace Thackeray, has made a name for itself since its publication. As one of the greatest critical realist writers of the 19th century in England, William Makepeace Thackeray drained his ironic power to describe all sorts of characters in the novel such as the sharp Bechy Sharp, the amiable Amelia, etc. The sarcastic tone, the incisive expression together with the humorous style distinguished this classic from its contemporary works, which has vividly depicted all forms of ugliness existed in the upper-class society in England in the 19th century. Meanwhile, the uniqueness of the classic as well as the great linguistic gap between two cultures becomes a huge barrier to the translation of the novel. Translators in China have made strenuous efforts to try and adopt different methods in order to vividly reproduce it in Chinese for the benefit of the Chinese readers, and their endeavors in the work have demonstrated an obvious manifestation on translators subjectivity. As the process of translation or interpretation begins with the understanding of the text in question, there is naturally a connection between Hermeneutics and translation theories, for it is exactly such kind of theory that calls for understanding and interpreting the meaning of the text. Hermeneutics, a method of textual analysis, has gone through three phases, namely, classic, general, and modern Hermeneutics (including ontological and philosophical hermeneutics). It bears a close relationship with translators subjectivity, especially some of its core concepts such as George Steiners Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation Motion Theory, Gadamers Hermeneutic Theory of “Fusion of Horizons”, “Prejudice” and “Fore-Understanding”. According to George Steiners Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation Motion Theory，a translation cannot be achieved only when it is composed after the translator undergoes four necessary phases, namely, trust, aggression, corporation and compensation. None of the four steps can operate independently to produce the desired effect without involving translators subjectivity for the reasons that, in the first place, a text would not be chosen for the act of translating if the translator does not have faith in the translatability of the text. And then, during the process when the translator penetrates into and tries to make sense of the text, he unavoidably injects his own subjective factors into his comprehension. Thirdly, the ultimate aim of aggression is corporation, which is more or less mixed with translators subjectivity. Thus, compensation is indispensible to make up for the discrepancy caused by the cultural gap and translators subjectivity. Gadamers Hermeneutic Theory of “Fusion of Horizons”, “Prejudice” and “Fore-Understanding” has unveiled the essence of translation that in order to do translation, the translator should first of all act as a reader, then as a writer. In line with Gadamers theory of “Fusion of Horizons”, there are two different horizons in the translators process of understanding and interpreting the original work as a reader: one is the texts horizon; the other is the interpreters horizon. When creating a literary work, the author carries his/her own primary horizon, while the interpreter has his/her own special horizon conceived in his/her specific era and cultural and cognitive environment. Thus the fusion of horizon takes place when the interpreter begins to understand the original work. As a result, a brand-new horizon appears which is higher than both of the previous two. Due to his/her “fore-understanding”, the translators comprehension of the source language text is a historical activity, which is limited by the translators historical condi