【作者】 南俊军；

【导师】 张京生；

【作者基本信息】 山东师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 本文主要论述了作为翻译策略的归化和异化在翻译中的选择的问题。归化翻译是指以目的语为归宿的翻译方法,即运用目的语文化易于接受的表达法,使译文更通俗易懂,更适合于目的语读者。异化翻译是指以源语文化为归宿的翻译方法,即尽力再现原文的色彩以便更好地保留源语文化的异国情调。归化遵守译语语言文化当前的主流价值观,异化偏离本土主流价值观;归化对于文化间的差异采取压制手段,在翻译中采用译语透明、流畅的风格,力求读者的易解;异化保留语言文化差异,使译文呈现出异质成份。归化和异化在语言文化层面上各不相同,它们不同于传统的翻译方法直译和意译。归化的代表人物奈达提倡功能对等,强调读者接受,即强调原文和译文读者反应的对等。他认为归化是一种不可缺少的方法,归化能有效地避免语言和文化的冲突并使有效的跨文化交际成为可能。作为归化翻译的代表人物,奈达重视翻译的交际功能。他所提倡的“动态对等”被定义为“目的语读者对译文信息的接受与源语读者对原文的接受应大体一致。”然而异化代表人物韦努蒂倡导“阻抗式翻译”以便发展一种翻译实践与理论来突出源语文本的文化差异。在翻译实践中,从译本的选择、翻译策略的选用到译文的编辑、阅读、评论,都会受到译语语言文化及社会状况的影响和干涉。因此归化和异化这两种翻译策略的选择不是任意的,而是受到文本、译者、读者、以及意识形态和伦理道德等因素的制约。本文着重就不同文本的特点,对各自的归化与异化程度进行了较细的考察,以证明归化与异化的在翻译中的动态统一。我们还认为,随着不同文化更频繁的接触以及文化的扩散与发展,异化会越来越成为一种趋势。本文以下述形式展开:第一部分,背景介绍。作者简要介绍了“异化”、“归化”这两个术语产生的历史背景及内涵。异化派、归化派的代表人物的观点、各自的理论依据以及中外历史上关于如何运用这两种翻译策略的争论等。第二部分,主要分析制约这两种翻译策略的因素,如翻译目的、文本类型、作者意图以及读者的接受能力等。第三部分,对文学、科技和社科三类文本的性质、语言特点、各自的翻译任务及目标进行了较细分析,考察了三类文本在文化因素处理上采用归化与异化的不同侧重。具体地说,就象征意义、语用意义及饱含文化因子的古诗的翻译,由价值观念和社会历史差异产生的特殊意义词的翻译,科技术语的翻译,商标广告的翻译等,阐明文本性质在如何决定异化与归化的不同侧重。最后一部分得出结论:异化与归化是动态统一的,两者可以结合运用,因而两者是对立统一,相辅相成的关系。归化和异化的选择并非是非此即彼,二是应该综合考虑文本制约因素,两者结合运用。但是,在翻译过程中尽量争取异化,只在难以异化的情况下进行必要的归化,这看来是二者矛盾发展的主流。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis mainly deals with the choice of domestication and foreignization as two alternative strategies in translation. Domestication means bringing the foreign culture closer to the reader in the target culture, making the target text recognizable and familiar to the readers. Foreignization, on the other hand, means taking the reader over to the source text and in turn to the foreign culture, making him or her see the differences. Domestication tries to repress cultural differences and adopt a transparent and fluent style as well as a method of reader’s immediate intelligibility while foreignization attempts to recognize those differences and allow them to shape cultural discourses in the target language and eschews fluency for a more heterogeneous mix of discourses. The two strategies differ from each other not only at the linguistic level, but also at the cultural level, and as such they differ from the traditional translation methods of literal translation and free translation.Eugene A. Nida advocates functional equivalence and lays stress on the reader’s responses to the original and the translated version. In his mind, domestication is an indispensable means to avoid linguistic and cultural conflict so as to achieve effective intercultural communication in translation. Besides, he emphasizes on the communicative function of translation. In his translation theory Nida puts forward“dynamic equivalence”, which is defined as“the degree to which the receptors of message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language.”(Nida, 1964) However, Venuti advocates“resistance translation”(Venuti, 1995) in order to develop a new theory and practice of translation to signify the linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text.The choice of the two strategies in translation practice is not arbitrary but constrained and entailed by various factors from text type, translator, reader, to ideology, morality etc. By analyzing the foreignizing or domesticating inclination in different text types in particular social situations we can illustrate the dynamic unity of foreignization and domestication. And we can see that, with the increasingly frequent contact of cultures and the development of cultural diffusion, it is quite likely for the SL (source language) culture-oriented principle to become more and more acceptable. This thesis is divided into four chapters.Chapter one mainly introduces these two translation strategies, their advocates, theoretical basis, the debates on them and their functions in cultural communication.Chapter Two analyzes the factors conditioning the use of these two strategies. Several factors affect the choice of these two strategies such as the translator, text type and the reader’s acceptance.Chapter Three, as the main part, analyzes the features and the strategies for literary writings, treatises in humanities and social sciences and scientific and technical texts, with a view to proving that various text types involving different degree of cultural implications lead to varying emphasis on the employment of foreignization and/or domestication in their translation; which is elaborated by discussing the transference of different symbolic and pragmatic meanings between English and Chinese and the way of dealing with the images in some classical Chinese poems, culture-bound words, scientific and technical terms, brands and advertisements.The last part draws a conclusion that foreignization and domestication are dynamically united. It is possible for foreignizaiton to be the dominant method, or vice versa. And the priority of the two approaches varies depending on the types of texts to be translated, with literary translations generally preferring foreignization, and only when necessary resorting to the domesticating approach, since the ultimate goal of such translation is to learn from the source culture and give impetus to the cultural flourish of the target language.更多还原