从多元系统论解析中国第三次翻译高潮

发布时间：2018-11-27 11:22

【摘要】：传统翻译理论侧重对原文本和译本进行孤立的比较，相比之下，多元系统论则为翻译研究提供了一个新的视角。该理论将翻译与文化、社会、历史等因素结合起来，并为此后的翻译理论奠定基础。然而，多元系统论似乎没有受到应有的关注，而且许多研究者对该理论做出过于简单、浅显的阐释。随着伊塔马·埃文—佐哈尔的多元系统论在中国的发展，翻译研究者对其进行分析并检验它在中国语境中的解释力。该理论强调翻译文学在文学多元系统中的位置：若翻译文学占有主要位置，译者会打破本国传统的规范，采取异化策略，从而使译本倾向于充分性；当翻译文学在次要位置时，译者则为外国文本寻找最佳的模式，采取归化法使译本具有可接受性。根据这个假设，一些人认为译者要么异化要么归化，如果同一时期出现了两种翻译策略，则证明多元系统论的解释力不足。本论文拟以中国第三次翻译高潮作为个案研究，进而纠正一些观点。多元系统论并不否定同时存在相互竞争的规范，而是认为这些规范有主流支流之分，并为各自的团体服务。另外，翻译文学本身作为一个系统具有自己的层次，一些翻译文学可处于中心位置，另一些翻译文学则会处于边缘位置。五四运动之前，中国文学多元系统相对稳定，，使得其翻译文学处于边缘的位置。这个时期的翻译家，例如严复、林纾考虑到目标语读者（当时的士大夫、文人）的心理特点，采用归化法提高译作的可接受度。而在五四运动之后，有识之士意识到中国传统文化的缺陷，已有的文学模式无法满足新的发展，导致翻译逐渐步入多元系统的中心，引入西方的文学格式，为本土文学创造新规范。例如鲁迅与瞿秋白采用异化法以丰富目标语文化。与此同时，以梁实秋为代表的意译派则坚信中国传统文化足够丰富，无须借助翻译引进新的语言表达形式，因此他们极力维护封建文化的价值观和审美观，主张采取归化法。然而从梁实秋的翻译实践中，我们发现他采用了异化为主，归化为辅的策略。鲁梁二人针锋相对的辩论源于不同的政治立场。若仅从翻译的角度来研究该时期多元系统论的适用性，会发现两种策略的同时存在与多元系统并不冲突，因为该系统的主支流之分可以给予合理的解释。异化法是当时的主流，而归化法属于支流。本论文旨在纠正某些片面的观点，希望对多元系统论做出相对全面的理解和认识。
[Abstract]:The traditional translation theory focuses on the isolated comparison between the original text and the translation, whereas the polysystem theory provides a new perspective for translation studies. This theory combines translation with cultural, social and historical factors and lays the foundation for subsequent translation theories. However, the theory of polysystem does not seem to have received due attention, and many researchers have made a simple and simple interpretation of the theory. With the development of Itama Even-Zohar 's theory of polysystem in China, translation researchers analyze it and test its explanatory power in Chinese context. This theory emphasizes the position of translation literature in the multi-system of literature: if the translation literature occupies the main position, the translator will break the traditional norms of his country and adopt the strategy of alienation, so that the translation will tend to adequacy; When the translation literature is in the secondary position, the translator seeks the best model for the foreign text, and adopts the domestication method to make the translation acceptable. According to this hypothesis, some people think that the translator should be either alienated or domesticated. If two translation strategies appear in the same period, it is proved that the explanation of polysystem theory is insufficient. This thesis takes the third translation climax of China as a case study and corrects some viewpoints. Polysystem theory does not negate the existence of competing norms simultaneously, but holds that these norms are divided into mainstream tributaries and serve their respective groups. In addition, translation literature itself as a system has its own level, some translation literature can be in the central position, others will be at the edge of the position. Prior to the May 4th Movement, the pluralistic system of Chinese literature was relatively stable, making its translation literature marginal. Translators of this period, such as Yan Fu and Lin Shu, took into account the psychological characteristics of the target language readers (literati and literati at that time), and adopted the domestication method to improve the acceptability of the translated works. After the May 4th Movement, the people of insight realized the defects of Chinese traditional culture, and the existing literary models could not meet the new development, which led to the gradual entry of translation into the center of the pluralistic system and the introduction of the western literary format. Create new norms for local literature. For example, Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai used dissimilation to enrich the culture of the target language. At the same time, the free translation school, represented by Liang Shiqiu, believed that Chinese traditional culture was rich enough to introduce new forms of expression without translation, so they tried their best to uphold the values and aesthetic standards of feudal culture, and advocated the adoption of naturalization. However, from Liang Shiqiu's translation practice, we find that he has adopted the strategy of foreignization, supplemented by domestication. The debate between Lu Liang and Liang came from different political positions. If we study the applicability of polysystematic theory in this period only from the perspective of translation, we can find that the existence of the two strategies at the same time does not conflict with the multi-system, because the division of the main tributaries of the system can be reasonably explained. The alienation method was the mainstream at that time, while the domestication method belonged to the tributary. The purpose of this paper is to correct some unilateral views and to make a relatively comprehensive understanding and understanding of polysystematic theory.
【学位授予单位】：延安大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H059

【相似文献】