【作者】 刘雪芹；

【导师】 冯庆华；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 《论语》是中国文化经典中的经典,其英译对于传播中国传统文化有着至关重要的意义。本文将从《论语》译本的辅文本视角,重点探讨《论语》英译所涉及的各种“语境化”。翻译研究领域已然意识到对各种语境变量的静态研究已不能解释翻译过程的动态实际,还不如探察翻译文本的生产和接受的语境化过程。而翻译研究领域的“语境化”(contextualization)一词可以用在不同的层面,表示不同的意思。譬如描述翻译研究就强调“语境化”。描述翻译研究摒弃了传统的“原文—译文”对应,将翻译视为一种文化现实,注重考察接受方文化和接受情境。因此,描述翻译研究的“语境化”指的是将译本和翻译活动置于大的社会、文化、历史语境中进行考察和评价,能使翻译批评更为客观。神学和《圣经》翻译也提倡“语境化”,指的是将信息适境地迁移到接受方文化,使之被理解。而同样是为了实现被理解的目的,丰厚翻译则主张提供相关的源语语境。就具体操作而言,翻译无疑是一种语言交际活动,语言使用本身就是一个“语境化”过程,而翻译就是一个利用语境、调动语境甚或营造语境来理解意义,然后生成意义的双重语境化活动。鉴于“语境化”一词可以表示多种含义,本文区分了翻译中的语境化和翻译的语境化,宏观策略层面的语境化和微观操作层面的语境化,适境语境化和造境语境化等几对概念。“翻译中的语境化”是指译者在翻译活动中要经历的语境化阐释和表达过程,属于翻译过程研究的范畴;“翻译的语境化”是将翻译活动置于其翻译语境中加以考察,是描述翻译学视野下的翻译批评。它们之间有区别,也有联系。翻译批评所进行“翻译的语境化”仍然需要考虑译者在“翻译中的语境化”,才能全面、正确、客观地认识翻译活动,解释翻译现象,评价译者译作。“宏观层面的语境化”指的是翻译的宏观策略,主要表现出两种取向:一种是适应译语文化语境的“适境语境化”,另一种是基于源语文化语境的“造境语境化”。适境语境化尊重译语文化语境,并根据接受语境对文本的表现形式及意义进行适当的调适,借用译语中的文化意象进行语境重构;造境语境化则尊重源语文化语境,强调在源语语境的基础上复制语境,并迁移到译语中。就微观层面而言,翻译是一个包括译者与作者、译者与读者的两轮交际活动,而交际就是一个明示—推理过程。在前一轮交际中,即在语境化阐释阶段,译者是受话人,他依靠对自身认知语境的不断取舍和建构去推理、解读文本信息。在第二轮交际中,即语境化表达阶段,译者是发话人,为了实现自己的交际目的,译者可以利用一定的语境化手段,营造一个有利于实现自身交际目的的语境。本文在区分各种“语境化”概念的基础上,通过观察译本中的辅文本,具体分析了《论语》英译本的生产和接受过程中涉及的各个意义上的“语境化”。为此,全文共分八章:第一章介绍《论语》英译研究的背景和现状,引出本文的辅文本观察视角和研究方法。译本的辅文本无疑是观察翻译的重要窗口,而以往的研究认为,译本的辅文本可以揭示译者的翻译动机、目的、策略以及翻译规范。本文通过观察《论语》英译本丰富的辅文本发现,辅文本在揭示译者的宏观翻译策略的同时,还能够充分说明翻译微观层面的语境化过程。以往对翻译过程的研究方法主要是有声思维法、译文倒推法。然而,有声思维法研究对象有限,且研究对象未必具有广泛代表性;译文倒推法的研究者又免不了带有很大的主观臆测成分,且译者的表达并不完全等同于其理解,因此对翻译过程的解释力不强,而从辅文本进行观察则可兼取二者之长。第二章探讨《论语》英译的特殊性,并回顾其英译简史。第一,《论语》作为先秦文献的典型,文本在语言文字上以及在文本的权威性上都较为特殊;第二,由于时间、空间和文化的跨度,现代译者对古籍文献的阐释不是直接地与文本意义实现视域融合,而是要经由第三方(即历代阐释权威);第三,从文化而言,中国文化处于高语境一端,英美文化位于低语境一端;从语言而言,古代汉语位于高语境一端,现代英语位于低语境一端,因此,中国古籍的英译必然要遭遇语境的流失。这些都造成了《论语》英译特殊的困难。第三章对“语境”概念的提出和发展,以及翻译领域所进行的语境研究进行了梳理。第四章厘清了翻译研究领域涉及的“语境化”概念的含义,重点区分了“翻译中的语境化”和“翻译的语境化”,“宏观策略层面的语境化”和“微观操作层面的语境化”,“适境语境化”和“造境语境化”等概念,为后面几章的研究做好理论铺垫。第五章和第六章具体讨论“翻译中的语境化”过程的两个阶段,即语境化阐释和语境化表达阶段。第五章重点分析语境化阐释阶段,涉及译者如何利用、调动认知语境理解原作者意义,指出此阶段中,译者在信任的基础之上,知识和理性的指导之下,对文本意义进行分析和推理,实现各个语境层面的认知和谐,得出合理的解读。同时,我们也通过观察译者对同义词的阐释,指出语境化阐释也不是发生在真空中的单纯语言行为,而是会受到权力的牵制,然而译者在此阶段受到的影响与表达阶段不同,主要来自专家权力和信息权力。第六章则侧重探讨语境化表达阶段,既从宏观上分析各个不同译本所采取的宏观策略,又在微观上观察译者如何利用语码转换、插图漫画等语境化信号和手段,以实现自身的交际目的。第七章涉及“翻译的语境化”,即语境化视野下的《论语》英译批评,将翻译活动置于译本产生和接受的语境下进行审视和评价。本章在辅文本的基础上重点分析了辜鸿铭、马歇曼和理雅各译本,对这几个译本的各种批评提出新的看法。第八章对本研究进行总结。本文作者认为,对《论语》这样一部经典作品的多个译本进行全方位的语境化探索对于典籍英译的实践和批评都是有意义的。更多还原

【Abstract】 The translation of The Confucian Analects, which represents the culmination of Chinese classics, is of utmost importance in spreading traditional Chinese culture. This dissertation is intended to explore“contextualization‖in various senses involved in the translating and translations of the Confucian Analects based on the paratexts of its different versions.The circle of translation studies has been aware of the fact that closer attention to processes of contextualization in both the production and reception of translated texts is more enlightening than any static listing of contextual variables which is far from being enough to explain the dynamic translating reality. However, the word“contextualization‖has been used in different senses at different levels in translation studies. For instance,“contextualization‖is highly valued in DTS (Descriptive Translation Studies) which abandon the traditional idea of correspondence between the source text and the target text, take translations as facts of the target culture and focus on the target culture and reception context. Therefore,“contextualization‖in the DTS sense means commenting and assessing a translation or a translation activity in a wider social, cultural and historical context. For this reason,“contextualization‖in DTS can contribute to more objective translation criticism. In the meantime,“contextualization‖is also advocated in theology and Bible translation where the word means adapting the message to the receptor culture to make it more understandable and acceptable. For the same reason of understandability,“thick translation‖, at the other extreme of the continuum of contextualization, argues for a reproduction of the source context involved. At the micro operational level, translation is undoubtedly an activity of linguistic communication, a special form of language use which, in itself, is a contextualization process. Therefore, translation is a dual-contextualization process of utilizing, modifying or even reshaping the context to understand the meaning contained in the source text and then generate meaning in the target text. In view of the multiple meanings of the word“contextualization”, it is necessary for us to distinguish between“contextualization in translation”and“contextualization of translation”, between contextualization at the macro strategic level and that at the micro operational level, and between accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization.To be specific,“contextualization in translation”refers to the contextualized interpretation and re-expression performed by the translator in the translating process while“contextualization of translation”means examining a translation activity in its translation context, thus belonging to the category of translation criticism under the perspective of DTS. The two are different yet interconnected. When contextualizing a translation activity, one needs also to take into account the contextualization efforts made by the translator in the translating process so as to make a comprehensive, accurate and objective judgment of the translator, the translation activity or a particular translational phenomenon. At the macro strategic level, contextualization by a certain translator falls somewhereon a continuum between two extremes– one of extremely accommodative contextualization which focuses on adapting to the target cultural context and the other of extremely reconstructive contextualization which values a reproduction of the original cultural context.At the micro operational level, translation involves two rounds of ostensive-inferential communication (i.e., one between the translator and the author(s) and the other between the translator and the readers). In the first round of communication (to be named the stage of contextualized interpretation), the translator is the receptor who has to infer and interpret message contained in the source text by choosing from, giving up, and rebuilding his/her cognitive context. In the second round of communication (to be called the stage of contextualized re-expression), the translator becomes a speaker/writer who can adopt some contextualization devices and shape a favorable context in order to achieve his/her communicative purposes.On the basis of distinguishing between the different meanings of“contextualization”, this dissertation, by observing the paratexts of the different versions of the Confucian Analects, will make specific analysis of the contextualization in various senses involved in the production and reception of the different versions. To achieve this goal, this dissertation will include eight chapters. Chapter 1 gives a brief review of previous researches into the translation of the Confucian Analects and a general introduction to the research perspectives and methods in this current study. The paratext of a translated text is an important perspective to observe translation. However, previous literature has only shown that paratexts in and around a translated text can reveal the translator‘s motivations, purposes, strategies as well as the prevailing translation norms. This chapter argues that, in addition to revealing the translator‘s macro strategy, paratexts in and around a translated text can also illustrate the process of the translator‘s contextualization at the operational level. Past researches into the translating process mostly employ TAP (Think Aloud Protocol) or reverse engineering from the translated text. However, the objects under survey in TAP may not be widely representative and reverse engineering is subject to suspicions of being too subjective. Moreover, since the translator does not necessarily put what he/she understands from the source text into the target text, reverse engineering cannot fully explain the translating process. Fortunately, observation through the paratexts well integrates the merits of the above two methods.Chapter 2 discusses the special characteristics of translating the Confucian Analects and reviews its history of being translated into English. Firstly, the Confucian Analects is special in its linguistic forms and the authority of the original text. Secondly, modern readers of the ancient Chinese classics do not have direct dialogue with the original author(s) and thus cannot achieve a“fusion of horizon”. They have to rely, more or less, on the third party, i.e. the authoritative commentators in history. Thirdly, culturally and linguistically speaking, the Chinese culture and Chinese language are high context culture / language while the English culture and English language are low context culture / language. Translating from ancient Chinese into modern English will surely suffer loss of context. All these constitute the special difficulties of translating the Confucian Analects.Chapter 3 reviews the conception of the idea“context”and its development as well as its application in translation studies.Chapter 4 sorts through the different meanings of“contextualization”as employed in translation studies and makes a distinction between“contextualization in translation”and“contextualization of translation”, between contextualization at the macro level and that at the micro level, as well as between accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization, thus paving the way for discussions in the subsequent chapters. Chapter 5 and 6 are devoted to the discussion of the contextualization process in translation. Chapter 5 focuses on the stage of contextualized interpretation, exploring how the translator utilizes, modifies and reshapes his/her own cognitive context to understand the message expressed in the source text. It is suggested that in this stage, the translator, based on a trust for the original author(s) and guided by his own schema and reason, tries to analyze and infer the textual meaning to achieve his cognitive consonance at different levels and finally arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the text. Meanwhile, by studying the interpretation of synonyms in the Confucian Analects, it is pointed out that contextualized interpretation is by no means a simple linguistic activity taking place in a vacuum but a complicated one manipulated by powers. Different from that in the stage of re-expression, power that is at work in the stage of interpretation mainly comes from expert power and information power. Chapter 6 probes into the stage of contextualized re-expression at both the macro and micro levels. Macroscopically speaking, contextualization is a continuum between the two extremes of accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization. At the micro level, the chapter mainly looks into two major areas, namely code-switching and versions with comics, analyzing how the translator uses, modifies and even reshapes the context to realize his/her own communicative objectives.Chapter 7 focuses on“contextualization of translation”. In other words, this chapter reevaluates the translations by Ku Hung-ming, Joshua Marshman and James Legge by putting the different versions back into their respective translation contexts.The last chapter summarizes the current research. The author points out that a multi-dimensional exploration into the contextualization in different senses in different versions of such a representative classics as the Confucian Analects is surely of great significance to both the translation practice and translation criticism of Chinese classics.更多还原