【作者】 冯全功；

【导师】 苗菊；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 《红楼梦》是中国古典小说的巅峰之作，红学则是对小说本身及其相关话题（如曹学、脂批、版本、探佚、索隐等）的研究。其中，《红楼梦》翻译及对外传播研究也是红学的有机组成部分，为红学的持续发展注入了强大的新生力量。对《红楼梦》翻译进行规模而系统的研究便会形成《红楼梦》翻译学，或曰红楼译学。《红楼梦》翻译批评，简称红楼译评，是红楼译学的初始阶段，也是其核心组成部分。本研究从广义修辞学视角探讨《红楼梦》的英译，旨在利用学科间性，即翻译学、红学与修辞学之间知识资源的相互借鉴与利用，促进红楼译学的健康发展，为翻译修辞学的系统构建贡献力量。中国的修辞学集中在调音、炼字、组句、设格、谋篇、文体以及风格的探讨上，主要是一门写作的学问。西方的修辞学以劝说为核心，主要是一门演讲的学问。国内外修辞学都经历了从狭义到广义的突围，狭义修辞学在言，以语言为核心，广义修辞学在人，基于语言但又超越语言。广义修辞学从以言为主转向了以人为本，充分利用了相邻学科的知识资源，如文论、美学、哲学、叙事学、认知心理学等，强调修辞的认知性以及人的研究，认为哪里有语言，哪里就有修辞，并提出了人是修辞性存在的命题。广义修辞学并不排斥狭义修辞学的研究对象（如修辞格、风格等），而是在其基础上的深化和拓展，体现了研究者的发散思维、和合意识与人文关怀。谭学纯、朱玲提出的广义修辞学修辞功能的三大层面为本研究提供了基本的研究思路。三大层面包括修辞技巧、修辞诗学和修辞哲学，分别对应于话语（语言片段）的建构方式、文本的建构方式和人的精神建构。《红楼梦》中修辞技巧的英译研究主要选择了炼字以及引用、双关和比喻三种修辞格。炼字往往具有一定的辞格属性，如比喻、拟人、矛盾修饰等，译者要尽量调动自己的修辞认知，结合语境再现炼字之妙，以取得与原文相似的艺术效果。引用是互文性的典型表现。笔者主要选择与小说主题密切相关的引用予以分析，如宝黛爱情主题、家族盛衰主题等。译者处理此类引用时，尤其是间接引用，最好对之进行适度补偿，以为译文读者提供一定的交际线索或解读语境。双关语往往具有很强的抗译性，译者在不能体现双关的深层所指的情况下有时也会有所补偿，如杨译的加注，霍译在附录中的解释。然而，很多双关的双重语义在译文中有所流失，译者或只译出了其表层语义，或只译出了其深层语义。笔者认为，涉及重要双关的翻译时，如不能有效再现，加注说明还是必要的，这也是诚于作者、信于原文的一种表现。比喻的翻译要尽量再现原文中的喻体意象，对于比喻中的相似点，译者要根据需要，或再现以增强译文的表现力，或隐藏以增大译文的含意度。修辞诗学的英译研究主要包括小说书名中的修辞原型、叙事话语和文体风格。《红楼梦》书名包含了三个相互关联又相对独立的修辞原型，即红、红楼和梦，分别对应于生命之美的挽歌、贵族家庭的挽歌和尘世人生的挽歌。杨译较好体现了小说书名中的修辞原型，特别是其对红的处理。从修辞原型的再现而言，建议采取意象并置的陌生化方法把书名译为Red Mansion Dream，形成类似的（（（/）/）/）语义关系。话语中视角的英译要体现出叙述人称的合理性与一致性，人物视角还要再现出人物视角和思维风格的标志性词汇。人物话语/思想呈现方式的英译，译者既要如实再现（尤其是重要人物的重要话语），又要善于根据具体语境对各种呈现方式进行合理转换。对于诗歌文体的英译，杨译一般照本宣科，意义传达比较准确；霍译力求严格押韵，有时为了韵律不惜调整原文的意义。霍译偶尔还把原文的叙述文体转化为诗歌文体，增加了译文的审美性和艺术性。针对风格而言，霍译大量运用整合补偿，使译文风格整体上呈现出趋繁的倾向（相对原文和杨译）。加注补偿也许能化解这一矛盾，并且更能体现深度翻译的理念。修辞哲学在此主要指修辞话语的哲理内涵，反映了说写者的世界观、人生观、价值观、审美观等。修辞哲学的英译研究主要包括对立修辞、女性修辞和俗语修辞。翻译时，唯有透彻理解才能准确表达。整体而言，各家译文皆有优劣之处，评论时需具体问题具体分析，特别是对立修辞。杨译的有无对立比较准确，霍译的好了对立趋于完美，尤其是《好了歌》的翻译。小说中的女性修辞是作者崇阴（女）抑阳（男）倾向最重要的修辞化表述，在封建男权社会具有深刻的思想性与强烈的颠覆性。贾宝玉的女性观是“处女崇拜”而不是泛泛的女性崇拜，翻译时一定要体现出女儿(girl)与女人(woman)或整个女性(female)的区别，注意措辞的一致性以及与男性的对比。俗语修辞的英译要尽量体现出一定的俗语性，如韵律优美、形式对称、语言简洁、思想深刻等。叙述话语中的俗语修辞很多具有“双声语”的性质，译者应分辨出作者的态度。另外，译者也要充分了解俗语的起源与演变，唯有如此，方能准确译之。修辞技巧和修辞诗学主要体现了小说的艺术性，修辞哲学则主要体现了小说的思想性。不管是以艺术性为主导还是以思想性为主导的红楼译评都可能或多或少涉及广义修辞学的三大层面。红楼译评中常见的是以原文为基点的原文―译文对照式修辞批评，本研究亦然。笔者在此提出了把译文视为独立文本的修辞批评，照顾了译者的“创造性叛逆”。文学翻译批评属于或然性领域，具有很强的主观性，分歧最多，非常适合进行论辩。笔者基于英国图尔明的实用论辩模式，提出了一个基于双主体互动的论辩修辞模式，包括共同的事实以及各自的理由、主张等，并以洪涛在红楼译评中的后设批评对之进行了分析。针对文学翻译，笔者提出了诚信之标准。所谓诚信，指诚于人和信于文，前者表现为主体间性，后者表现为文本间性和文化间性。修其内则为诚，修其外则为信，诚于内则必信于外。诚信不仅可作为文学翻译的标准，亦可作为文学翻译批评以及论辩修辞的标准，其本身的内部张力增加了其作为标准的弹性。诚信标准体现了以对话与和谐为主要内涵的“间性”时代精神。广义修辞学视域下的《红楼梦》英译研究整体上属于红楼译评的范围，本研究有很多论题的探讨还远非深入，也有很多论题只是点到为止或根本无暇涉及。这就为后续研究提供了广阔的空间，特别是红楼译学的健康发展与翻译修辞学的系统构建。更多还原

【Abstract】 Hong Lou Meng is the summit of classical Chinese novel, and the study of thisnovel and its related topics, such as the study of Cao Xueqin and his family, of thecomments of Zhi Yanzhai and other commenters, of its different versions etc, hasformed a special branch of knowledge called redology, of which the translation andinternational communication of Hong Lou Meng is an integral part, contributing a lotto the sustainable development of redology. The large-scale and systemic study of thetranslation of Hong Lou Meng will produce a subdiscipline called Hong Lou Mengtranslation studies, of which Hong Lou Meng translation criticism is both the initialstage and kernel part. This research investigates the English translations of Hong LouMeng from the perspective of extended rhetoric in order to promote the sounddevelopment of Hong Lou Meng translation studies and lay a firm foundation for thesystemic construction of translation rhetoric by taking full advantage ofinterdisciplinarity, namely, the mutual reference and utilization of knowledgeresources between translatology, redology and rhetoric.Chinese rhetoric mainly deals with how to write by focusing on the discussion ofsound-tuning, word-searching, sentence-forming, rhetorical-device-employing,text-arranging as well as genre and style while western rhetoric mainly relates to howto speak in public, taking persuasion as its core. Rhetoric, both home and abroad, hasexperienced a paradigm shift from narrow rhetoric to extended rhetoric. Narrowrhetoric takes language as its major concern while the major concern of extendedrhetoric is man. Extended rhetoric takes full advantage of the theoretical resources ofnearby disciplines, such as literary theory, esthetics, philosophy, narrotology andcognitive psychology etc, and places greater emphasis on the cognitive aspect ofrhetoric and the study of man. In the realm of extended rhetoric, the propositions canbe taken for granted that where there is language, there is rhetoric, and that man is arhetorized existence. In fact, the research objects of narrow rhetoric, such asrhetorical devices, style etc, are not excluded in extended rhetoric. The three-level construction of extended rhetoric proposed by Tan Xuechun and Zhu Ling, that is,rhetorical technique, referring to the construction of language fragments, rhetoricalpoetic, referring to the construction of text and rhetorical philosophy, referring toman’s spiritual construction, provides a framework for this research.The study of the English translation of rhetorical devices in Hong Lou Mengfocuses on word-searching, allusion, pun, simile and metaphor. Word-searchingusually implies some kind of rhetorical device, such as metaphor, personification,oxymoron etc. The translator should reproduce the subtlety of word-searching byactivating his or her rhetorical cognition in order to obtain a similar artistic effect tothat of the source text. Allusion is the most typical manifestation of intertextuality.Here allusions intimately related to the themes of Hong Lou Meng are chosen to beanalyzed, such as the theme of the love between Jia Baoyu and Lin Daiyu, the themeof the ups and downs of the Jia family etc. It is suggested that the translatorappropriately compensate for the loss in dealing with those allusions in order toprovide some communicative clues or context for the target reader. Since pun islargely untranslatable, it is necessary to make some compensation when the deepmeaning of the pun is not sufficiently translated. For example Yang Xianyi adds somenotes and D. Hawkes provides some explanations in his appendix for some of theuntranslatable puns. However, in many cases, the double meanings of the pun are lostin their translations. It is advised that note-adding should be necessary in translatingimportant puns if the deep meaning can not be reproduced, which is also themanifestation of cheng (sincere or honest) to the author and xin (true or faithful) tothe source text. The translation of simile or metaphor should, if possible, reproducethe image of the vehicle and, as to the similarity between the tenor and vehicle, thetranslator may both reproduce it to enhance expressiveness or conceal it to promoteimplicativeness of the target text.The study of the English translation of rhetorical poetic mainly includes therhetorical archetypes contained in the title of the novel, narrative discourse and genreand style. The title Hong Lou Meng contains three interrelated rhetorical archetypes,namely Hong, Honglou and Meng, which respectively corresponds with three themesof the novel---the elegy of female beauty, of feudal noble families, and of life itself. Comparatively speaking, Yang’s translation better reflects the rhetorical archetypes inthe title of the novel, especially his dealing with Hong. From the perspective ofreproducing rhetorical archetypes in translation, it is suggested the title of the novelbe translated into Red Mansion Dream so that the semantic relation of the source titlecan be reproduced by adopting this defamiliarized translation means of imagecombination. The translation of narrative view should reflect consistency as well asreasonableness of the narrative pronouns. In addition, the translation of character’sview should reproduce lexical markers of the character’s view and his or her mindstyle. As to the translation of the presentation of the character’s speech or thought, thetranslator should both faithfully reproduce it, especially regarding the importantspeeches or thoughts of important characters, and reasonably transform it accordingto specific context at the same time. As to the genre of poetry, Yang translatessomewhat accurately but lacks flexibility while Hawkes tries his best to strictly rhyme,and sometimes alters the meaning of the original poems to secure rhyme or rhythm.In Hawkes’ translation, there are also many cases of transforming narrative genre intopoetic genre, which increases the esthetic and artistic appeal of his translation.Hawkes’ extensive use of integrated compensation makes the overall style of histranslation take on the tendency of becoming amplified compared with the source textor Yang’s translation. Compensation in the form of note may solve this contradictionand better embodies the concept of thick translation.Rhetorical philosophy here mainly refers to the philosophical meaning ofrhetorical discourse, which reflects the speaker or the writer’s world outlook, lifeoutlook and value outlook etc. The study of the English translation of rhetoricalphilosophy mainly includes oppositional rhetoric, female rhetoric and proverbialrhetoric. When translating rhetorical philosophy, the translator should thoroughlyunderstand the meaning of it in order to accurately express it in the target language.Generally speaking, all of the translations have their own strengths and weaknesses,and thus, when making evaluation, the critic should analyze them case by case. Thisis especially true of oppositional rhetoric. Regarding oppositional rhetoric, Yang’stranslation of the opposition between you (being or existence) or and wu (non-beingor non-existence) is relatively accurate, while Hawkes’ translation of the opposition between hao (good or won) and liao (end or done) borders on perfection, especiallyhis translation of Hao-Liao Song. Female rhetoric in the novel is the most importantrhetorical manifestation of the author’s tendency of respecting yin (female) anddebasing yang (male), which has profound meaning and subversive power inpatriarchal society. Jia Baoyu’s female view is “virgin worship” instead of femaleworship (more inclusive). When translating his female rhetoric, the translator shouldpay attention to the difference between girl and woman or female, and to the lexicalconsistency and comparison with the male. The translation of proverbial rhetoricshould manifests a kind of proverbiality, such as exquisite in sound, symmetrical inform, succinct in language and profound in thought. Many of the proverbial rhetoricin narrative discourse possess a kind of “double voices”, and thus the translatorshould recognize which is the author’s voice. In addition, the translator should alsoknow something about the source and evolution of the proverbs, which will help himor her accurately translate them.Rhetorical technique and rhetorical poetic chiefly embody the artistic quality ofthe novel while rhetorical philosophy chiefly embodies its ideological quality.However, either art-oriented or idea-oriented translation criticism of Hong Lou Mengmay to a large or small degree involve the three levels of extended rhetoric. Thesource-text-based comparative translation criticism between source text and targettext is most popular, and the major part of this research also belongs to such kind oftranslation criticism. Another mode of literary translation criticism is suggested here,a mode that takes the target text as an independent text, which is instrumental ingiving credit to the translator’s “creative treasons”. There is much subjectivity inliterary translation criticism, which gives rise to argumentation. Based on S.Toulmin’s argumentation rhetoric, the author puts forward a model of argumentationrhetoric based on the interaction between two argumentation subjects. This modelincludes the shared fact, the warrants of each subject and their respective claims, andit is further exemplified by Hong Tao’s metacriticism of Hong Lou Meng translationcriticism. The author also proposes a standard of cheng xin for literary translation.Here cheng means sincere to subjects and xin means faithful to texts and cultures,with the former representing intersubjectivity and the latter intertextuality and interculurality. Cheng is the inner quality while xin is the outer expression. Cheng xinis not only the standard of translation, but also of translation criticism andargumentation rhetoric. There is inner tension in cheng xin, which enhances itsflexibility as a standard. Moreover, cheng xin embodies the Zeitgeist of internesswhich is characterized by dialogue and harmony.On the whole, this research can be categorized as Hong Lou Meng translationcriticism. There are many topics which have been far from thoroughly investigated,and still many others have been just mentioned or even not mentioned at all. So manyunploughed topics serve to provide vast room for further ploughing, which isbeneficial to the sound development of Hong Lou Meng translation studies and thesystemic construction of translation rhetoric.更多还原