【作者】 罗丹；

【导师】 崔永禄；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 哲学能为其他学科提供理论指导。交互主体性理论的出现是西方哲学发展的必然趋势。翻译研究的交互主体性转向从哲学上的交互主体性转向得到启示，同时这也是翻译研究自身发展的需要。翻译史上曾出现的作者中心主义、文本中心主义和读者（译者）中心主义都属于个体中心主义，反映的是一种以“我”为主体、他人为客体的个体主体性。因为忽略了人的社会性，忽略了他人对自我的意义，翻译的主体性研究走入了困境。翻译中的交互主体性正是在这种情况下出场的。西方翻译界对交互主体性的研究不多，主要有诺德的“功能+忠诚”原则，以及罗宾逊的“对话性”理论范式。诺德在“功能”的基础上引入“忠诚”，是对翻译中激进的功能主义的一种纠正，避免了只考虑译文读者而忽略原文作者的偏向。罗宾逊在翻译的路德范式和歌德范式基础上提出了对话性范式。在罗宾逊看来，对话最能反映翻译的本质。对话范式强调译者在翻译过程中的主体作用，以及他受到的来自个人身体以及社会意识形态的影响和制约。国内翻译研究者从20世纪90年代开始关注“主体”与“主体性”问题。总结这二十几年的研究，对“主体性”的讨论主要集中在以下四个方面：1）译者的主体意识与主体性；2）翻译中的主体；3）翻译中主体性的范围与限度；4）主体性向交互主体性的转向。西方哲学从主体性过渡到交互主体性经历了约两个半世纪，而国内翻译界只用了不到十年。在这段时间内，翻译界对交互主体性的认识形成了一些共识：交互主体性对翻译研究有重大意义；交互主体性体现在翻译中各主体平等的交往互动中；交互主体性是对传统个体主体性的纠正；主体间的交往应该遵循一定的行为规范和道德准则等。这些研究大多集中在西方哲学思想的引进、对交互主体性具体问题的探讨，以及交互主体性对翻译研究的意义等方面。较全面地对交互主体性进行理论阐释的研究尚且未见。另外，目前国内翻译界对交互主体性的认识还存在一些不足。主要体现在以下四个方面：1）对交互主体性概念的理解；2）对交互主体性中主体的界定；3）对交互主体性与主体性关系的理解；4）对交互主体性作用的评估。本论文主要沿着“学源考据”、“学理分析”和“实践研究”的思路进行。首先，对交互主体性的缘起进行了探究。交互主体性是20世纪初德国哲学家胡塞尔在创建自己的现象学中率先提出的概念。笛卡尔的“我思故我在”开启了现代主体性哲学的新篇章。把一切可以怀疑的东西全部排除在外，只剩下一个正在思考和怀疑的“我”。因此，主体性研究从一开始便面临陷入“唯我论”的危险。交互主体性是在反思主体性问题的基础上提出的。胡塞尔继承了笛卡尔“普遍怀疑”的精神，通过现象学还原，得到一个纯粹的“先验自我”。与笛卡尔正在思考和怀疑的“我”不同的是，这个“先验自我”在认识上先于一切客观存在，是一切客观认识产生的基础。笛卡尔的“我”是一个从属于客观世界的、思维着的主体；胡塞尔的“先验自我”是在整个客观世界出现之前、在主客体尚未分裂之前就原初存在的现象。通过这种彻底的现象学“悬搁”，交互主体性超越了主体性的二元对立。进入经验层面的自我具有构造的功能，通过“镜射”的方式构造出许多与之类似但不等同的他我（他人）。他人同样有构造的能力。自我与他人交互地构造彼此以及他们周围的世界。因此自我与他人互为主客体，他们的平等地位和相互制约便来源于此。主体性哲学中单向、对立的主体-客体关系被交互主体性哲学中双向、平等的主体-主体关系所取代。在此基础上，本论文考察了交互主体性在宗教神学、存在主义、解释学、对话论、社会学领域的发展。布伯的“我-你”关系是交互主体性思想在宗教哲学领域的一次重要阐释。海德格尔等从存在论的高度论证了交互主体性的重要性。伽达默尔的“视域融合”从解释学角度阐述了交互主体性在实际交流层面的内涵。巴赫金的对话理论让我们看到对话关系在三个层面的体现。哈贝马斯的“交往行为理论”使交互主体性走下纯理哲学的神坛进入实践哲学的范畴。在梳理该理论的发展历程后，我们给予交互主体性一个尝试性定义：交互主体性是对传统主体性，即个体主体性的纠正和补充，它的本质是社会活动中主体与其他主体在平等的交往互动中表现的主体性，包括能动性和主体间的交互关系两层内容，真正的主体性（即交互主体性）是能动性和受动性的统一。完成哲学领域的学源考据之后，本论文对进入翻译语境的交互主体性进行了学理分析。首先是翻译中交互主体性的理论内涵：它指翻译实践中主体与其他主体在平等的交往互动中表现的主体性，包含翻译中该主体的主体性和主体间人格平等的交互关系两层内容，是对以译者、作者或读者为中心的个体主体性的纠正和补充。因为交互主体性包含了主体性与交互关系两层内容，而主体间的交互关系是大多数人对“主体间性”这个词语的字面理解，因此我们倾向于将intersubjectivity译为“交互主体性”。论文接着提出翻译中交互主体性的四个特征。其中，差异性、平等性与平衡性之间是彼此印证、互为补充的关系，而整体性是更具宏观性和统领性的一种思维。需要指出的是，平衡性不等于平均性。平均是一种绝对的、静态的结果；而平衡是一种相对的、动态的过程。平等性也不等于平均性。平等要求起点和机会的平等，而平均要求结果的相同一致。交互主体性对翻译研究的意义主要体现在三个方面：有助于建立主体间的正常伦理关系；有助于翻译研究走出由二元对立思维造成的困境；有助于翻译回归对实践研究的重视。完成对交互主体性的理论研究之后，本论文从实践角度探讨了交互主体性在具体翻译活动中的体现。以杨宪益和霍克斯翻译《离骚》和《红楼梦》为例。根据翻译时期、翻译文本、翻译目的等因素的不同，译者与翻译中其他主体的交互主体性呈现不同形态。这表明，虽然交互主体性提倡翻译中各主体之间进行平等交流和对话，并不意味着各主体的利益得到平均分配。翻译是在各主体间维持动态平衡的过程。在《离骚》的翻译活动中，杨宪益和霍克斯都体现了向“他文化”的趋同；在《红楼梦》的翻译活动中，二者都体现了向“我文化”的趋同。这体现了主体从早期寻求他者认可到后期回归自身意识的转变。本论文接着从交互主体性角度对中国文化典籍的英译进行了思考。中国古典文化中有一些与交互主体性暗合的思想，如孔子的“仁”和“礼乐说”、孟子的“仁者”和性善论，以及墨子的“兼相爱”和“交相利”等。西方哲学中的交互主体性从“我”出发研究我与他人的关系，中国古典文化中的相关思想则更专注于“之间”这个维度。这些思想提倡人与人之间建立和睦相处、互惠互利的关系，但更多地依赖于人良好的道德修养和内在的善良人性。相比而言，西方的交互主体性理论更具理性色彩。交互主体性还有助于建立系统、独立的翻译学科。翻译研究要想成为一门独立而成熟的学科，需要有一个统领性的理论为指导，将众多翻译流派在一定程度上整合起来。交互主体性理论提倡各流派在保持自身独立性的同时借鉴其他流派的合理之处。通过各流派的渗透整合、多元互补和共同发展，翻译学有望最终成为一门成熟、全面的学科。更多还原

【Abstract】 Philosophy provides theoretical guidance to other disciplines. The appearanceof the theory of intersubjectivity is a natural outcome of western philosophydevelopment. The turn to intersubjectivity in translation is the result of such turn inphilosophy. Meanwhile, it meets the needs of its own development of translationstudies. There have been three paradigms in the history of translation studies, namely,the author-centered paradigm, the text-centered paradigm, and the reader(translator)-centered paradigm. These all belong to the category of self-centeredness,reflecting a kind of individual subjectivity characterizing “I” as the subject, whileothers as the object. By ignoring man’s social status, as well as the significanceothers have on “me”, research on subjectivity in translation has gone into a dilemma.It was under such circumstances that the theory of intersubjectivity made its debut.In western translation field, not much work has been done on intersubjectivity.We can count on the principle of function plus loyalty of Nord and the Dialogics oftranslation of Robinson. By adding the factor of loyalty to function, Nord made arectification on radical functionalism in translation studies which tended to consideronly the target language readers while ignoring the source language author.Robinson put forward the dialogical paradigm after the Luther paradigm and theGoethe paradigm. In his opinion, dialogue could best present the nature oftranslation. The Dialogical paradigm emphasizes the subjective role of translator intranslation, as well as the influence and restrictions he receives from idiosomatic andideosomatic restraints.In China, researchers began to show interests in the topic of subject andsubjectivity in1990s. To sum up, discussions about them mainly concentrate on thefollowing four aspects:1) the subjective consciousness and subjectivity of thetranslator;2) subject(s) in translation;3) the range of and limits on subjectivity;4)the turn from subjectivity to intersubjectivity. It took the western philosophy nearlytwo and a half century to initiate the transition from subjectivity to intersubjectvity.For our translation studies, it only cost less than ten years, during which some consensus has been reached. Such as: intersubjectivity has great importance ontranslation studies; intersubjectivity is shown in the equal interactions amongtranslation subjects; intersubjectivity is a rectification on traditional individualsubjectivity; subjects should obey certain codes of conduct and ethics incommunication. However, these researches were mostly about the introduction ofwestern classical philosophical thoughts, the discussion on some specific problemsabout intersubjectivity, and the significance intersubjectivity has on translationstudies, etc. Comprehensive theoretical elaboration on intersubjectivity is stilllacking. In addition, there has been some misconceptions and confusion concerningintersubjectivity, mainly falling into the following four categories:1) thecomprehension of the concept of intersubjectivity;2) the definition of subject inintersubjectivity;3) the understanding of the relation between intersubjectivity andsubjectivity;4) the evaluation of the effect of intersubjectivity.This dissertation follows such steps: theoretical retrospection, theoreticalanalysis and practical case studies. The origin of intersubjectivity has been traced.Intersubjectivity is a concept first brought forward by Husserl in constructing hisPhenomenology. Descartes’“I think, therefore I am” opened a new chapter inmodern philosophy of subjectivity. By excluding all possible things that could besuspected, a sole “I” who was thinking was left. Therefore, researches onsubjectivity could easily fall into the trap of Solipsism right from the beginning.Intersubjectivity was put forward on the reflection of subjectivity. Husserl carried onthe spirit of general skepticism of Descartes and, in a way called Phenomenologicalreduction, he got a Transcendental Ego. Differing from Descartes’ thinking andsuspecting “I”, this Transcendental Ego not only exists before all objective reality,but also is the foundation of every objective understanding. Descartes’“I” is athinking subject belonging to the objective world, while Husserl’s TranscendentalEgo is an original phenomenon before the appearance of the whole world and theseparation of subject and object. Through this Phenomenological epoche,intersubjectivity transcends the dualism in subjectivity. Once entering theexperiential sphere, ego gains the ability to constitute. By means of reflecting, itconstitutes other ego (alter ego), as well as itself. Other ego constitutes itself and his alter ego in the same way. That is to say, ego and others constitute each other and theworld around them. Therefore, they are given a dual identity of subject and objectwhich can be switched in specific interaction. Their equal status and the constraintson each other both derive from this. The unilateral and antithetical subject-objectrelation in subjectivity is replaced by a bilateral and equal subject-subject relation inintersubjectivity.After a deep exploration into Husserl’s theory, this dissertation studies thedevelopment of intersubjectivity in the fields of Religious Theology, Existentialism,Hermenutics, Dialogism, and Sociology. Buber’s “I-Thou” relation was an importantinterpretation of intersubjectivity in the Philosophy of Religion. Heideggerdemonstrated the significance of intersubjectivity from the perspective of Ontology.The Fusion of Horizon of Gadamer, from the angle of Hermenutics, expounded theconnotation of intersubjectivity in practical communication. Bakhtin’s Dialogismshowed us the manifestation of dialogic relation at three levels. The CommunicativeAction theory of Habermas brought intersubjectivity down from the altar of puretheoretical philosophy, and walked it to the field of practice.After a comprehensive review of its theoretical development in westernphilosophy, we give intersubjectivity a tentative definition: intersubjectivity is arectification and supplement of traditional individual subjectivity. In essence, it is akind of subjectivity exerted in the equal interactions between a subject and othersubjects in social communication. It includes two layers of contents, namely,initiative of the subject, and interactive relation between subjects. The idealsubjectivity (intersubjectivity) is a unity of initiative and passivity.When theoretical retrospection has been done, this dissertation carries onanalyzing the theory of intersubjectivity in the translation context, beginning with itsconnotation. Intersubjectivity in translation is the kind of subjectivity exerted inequal interactions between a subject and other subjects in translation activities. Itconsists the following two layers of connotation: initiative of this subject intranslation and equal interactive relation among subjects. It is a rectification andsupplement of individual subjectivity that is either translator-centered,author-centered or reader-centered. Since intersubjectivity involves subjectivity and interactive relation, while the latter is taken by many as the meaning of “主体间性”，we tend to translate intersubjectivity into “交互主体性”.Intersubjectivity in translation has four qualities, namely, difference, equality,equilibrium and holism. The first three confirm and supplement each other, whileholism is more like a comprehensive and unifying way of thinking. What should benoted is that, equilibrium is by no means equal to evenness. Evenness is an absoluteand static result, while equilibrium is a relative and dynamic process. Equalitydiffers from evenness too. Equality asks for an equal start, while evenness demandsan identical result. The significance intersubjectivity has on translation studies canbe summarized into three points: it contributes to build a healthy ethical relationamong subjects; it helps translation studies to get out of the dilemma caused bybinary opposition; it calls for a renewed emphasis on practice in translation studies.The next chapter is about concrete manifestation of intersubjectivity in specifictranslation activities. Both Yang Xianyi and Hawkes have translated Li Sao andHong Lou Meng. Their translation strategies vary according to the periods whentranslation occurred, the text types and the purposes of translation. This indicatesthat, although intersubjectivity advocates communication and dialogues on an equalbasis among subjects in translation, it doesn’t mean their interests can be evenlydistributed. Translation is a dynamic process during which translator pursuits arelative balance among other subjects. In the translation of Li Sao, both Yang Xianyiand Hawkes demonstrate a tendency to approach “they-culture”, while in thetranslation of Hong Lou Meng, both of them display a tendency towards“we-culture”. This shows a diversion from seeking recognition from others at thebeginning to recovering one’s self-consciousness in latter days. Then this dissertationdiscusses about the English translation of Chinese literary Classics from theperspective of intersubjectivity.In Chinese classical culture, some propositions shared similar thoughts withintersubjectivity. Such as the Benevolence and Polite Arts of Confucius, the HumaneMan and the Goodness of Human Nature of Mencius, as well as the Universal Loveand Mutual Benefit of Mozi. Intersujectivity in western philosophy emphasizes therelation between others and me from My point of view. That in Chinese classical culture focuses on the dimension of “inter”. These propositions advocate harmoniousinterrelation and mutual benefits among people. But these basically depend on moralcultivation and kind human nature. Comparatively speaking, intersubjectivity inwestern philosophy is much more rational.Intersubjectivity contributes to Translation studies in developing towards asystematic and independent discipline. Various translation schools and approachescan, in some extent, be integrated into a whole. Under the influence ofintersubjectivity, it is encouraged to learn from others yet still preserve one’s ownindividuality. In this process of complement and cooperation, Translation Studies caneventually grow into a well-developed and comprehensive discipline.更多还原