【作者】 李宏鸿；

【导师】 张春柏；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 解构主义翻译观是源于解构主义哲学思想的翻译理论,自问世以来就充满了争议。本着正本清源的精神,本论文以解构主义翻译观最重要的两个代表人物本雅明和德里达为研究对象,从它的哲学渊源开始,对它的主要内容和精神内涵进行了全面、系统的梳理,探讨了该理论从本雅明到德里达的发展轨迹,指出它对文学翻译深刻的启示意义,最终阐明了解构主义翻译观借助哲学、语言、文学、翻译等多种渠道传递出的一种多声部的和谐精神,展示了蕴含在它精神深处的和谐主题。全文共分七章。第一章是导言。概述了解构主义翻译观的和谐主题以及解构主义翻译观对于翻译研究的深远意义,同时也对德里达和本雅明在解构主义翻译观上的亲缘性进行了阐述。笔者认为,解构主义翻译观对于翻译研究的意义除了表现在它对翻译的根本问题所提出的一整套系统看法之上,更着重表现在它对文学翻译的启示意义之上。因为,解构主义翻译观关于意义永远无法确定、文本无定解、翻译不是为了传递内容,而是为了释放真理等思想与文学作品的语言的无限创造性、文本的高度虚构性以及随后衍生的文本解读的开放性等突出特征共同构成的文学作品的文学性的精神高度契合。源于解构哲学的解构主义翻译观虽然带有破坏性的表象,然而它实际上传递的是一种语言和谐的精神以及超越语言的人文意义上的和谐主题,这一点在它从本雅明到德里达的翻译思想的发展中得到了充分的体现。虽然本雅明并未给自己的翻译思想贴上解构主义的标签,然而他的翻译思想以其与德里达翻译观在解构思想上的高度亲缘性而成为事实上的解构主义翻译观的源头。第二章阐述了解构主义翻译观从哲学思想到翻译思想的发展轨迹,追溯了解构主义翻译观的哲学渊源,对解构哲学进行了理论综述,并对解构主义及其翻译观进行了文献综述。本章指出,解构主义的形成是建立在对传统哲学的解构的基础之上,海德格尔的此在思想和索绪尔的结构主义对于德里达反传统的解构思想的形成是影响最大的一对组合。然而究其本质,这两种思想都是形而上学的另一种形式的复活,甚至连解构思想本身也依然没有逃脱柏拉图的日全食式的影响。不过,解构主义借助延异、痕迹、涂抹、播撒等概念割断了能指与所指间的对应关系,让意义流动起来,凸显语言的相关性,展示了语言在动态关联中表现出的生命力及其所营造的和谐景象。这又使得解构主义明显地有别于传统哲学,也成为它为哲学的发展做出的重大贡献。解构主义哲学中的延异、痕迹、涂抹、播撒等主要概念在解构主义翻译观中得到了充分的体现,表现为对翻译中的根本问题所提出的一整套看法,如,它否定了原作的绝对权威地位,认为译作和原作同为意义的能指链上的一分子,翻译并非意义的输送、而是一种有规律的转化,翻译的目的是要实现语言王国的和谐,等等。本章同时指出,解构主义及其翻译观在西方和中国都长期遭遇了对它的普遍误读,究其原因有四：1.解构主义论著自身文字的晦涩难懂；2.受新批评传统长期熏陶的学者对文字游戏的过分迷恋所导致的解构思想中最为精髓的人文思想的旁落；3.解构主义长期以来只被当作一种方法论来看待而导致的其哲学内涵的流失；4.解构思想中“禅宗”的东方元素与德里达的西方式讲解的中西结合给读者带来的阅读困难。为了准确把握解构主义翻译观的精神内涵,目前译界应加大对它的文本细读的力度,并要将其置于它的哲学背景之下去理解和探讨。第三章在对本雅明阐述其语言观和翻译观的主要著作“译者的任务”和“论语言本身和人的语言”进行细读的基础上,从翻译的本质和目的、(不)可译性、原作/译作关系、纯语言、译者的任务、以及翻译的标准及方法这六个方面阐明了本雅明的解构主义翻译观的主要内容,说明虽然本雅明的翻译观中已露出和谐精神的端倪,但由于神学对他的过度影响使得这种和谐始终戴着镣铐跳舞,变得和而不谐。第四章对德里达的“巴别塔”一文进行了详细的文本分析,阐述了德里达和本雅明之间在解构主义翻译观上的内在亲缘性。之所以选择它是因为该文的后半部分完全就是德里达对本雅明的“译者的任务”所做的解读,这种结构本身就昭示着二者之间的内在亲缘性,充分体现了德里达对本雅明的继承和发展,就像格拉海姆所指出的那样：“在精心构思的术语和主题中,不仅缺失的东西得以补充,含蓄的东西也被清晰地表达出来,不重要的变成重要的了,边缘的变成核心的了。这样的补充可被正确地看作赞扬。”(78)在德里达对本雅明所做的补充和完善的阐述当中,尤以他对“纯语言”这一核心概念的发展最为突出。本雅明在这个概念中倾注了深厚的神学思想,将其看成能够表达神启的上帝的语言。德里达在保留其源初的宗教性的基础上,借助巴别塔的隐喻从“谈论语言的起源和分散”(ibid)开始,将纯语言进而阐释为表达了人间真意的“真理”,让它从神界走进人间,将神性进一步融入人性,赋予纯语言更多的人文情怀。德里达指出,翻译的任务是让且仅让我们与真理的语言变得相关,我们永远看不到那个遥远的终点,只能在翻译的过程中去体验(感觉)它。所以德里达说,翻译即体验,体验即翻译。我们通过体验那段遥远的距离从而体验到真理语言的存在。真理本身对于人类而言也是如此。我们永远无法穷尽它,但我们会在追寻它的过程中感觉到它的力量。德里达的思想有效地削弱了本雅明翻译观中过重的神学影响,将其转化为对人类具有普遍意义的哲学思想。故而,德里达的翻译观不仅让语言和谐的精神得以全面呈现,而且还表达了建立一个和谐世界的人文精神。第五章对德里达体现在“相关的翻译”中的翻译观进行了详尽的阐释,对其中的重要概念进行了较为彻底的梳理,指出“相关的翻译”指的是能够升华、净化、调节、内化、救赎语言的翻译,澄清了译界对它的严重误读,突出表现在将德里达自己所说的：“因此,适当的翻译简单说就是‘好的’翻译,与人们的期待相符合的翻译,简言之,履行了使命、偿付了债务、完成了任务或职责的一种表达(version),同时又在接收语言中抄写了对原文最适当的(relevant)等同物,最正确的、合适的、相关的、充分的、诗意的、明确的、单声的、惯用的语言”(150)误解为是德里达对于翻译的本质的看法。德里达的“相关的翻译”的翻译观进一步体现了他对本雅明的继承,同时更为充分地体现了他对本雅明的发展和超越。如,在继承了本雅明对语言差异性的尊重的基础之上指出语言的相关性；在继承了本雅明关于翻译的任务是释放真理、救赎语言的基础之上提出翻译对于语言还有升华、净化、调节、内化的功能；在继承了本雅明通过陶罐的碎片、后世之生命、果皮／果肉之于皇袍／身体、切线与圆等一系列隐喻所阐述的关于原作／译作关系的思想的基础之上,利用莎士比亚的《威尼斯商人》作为人类思想经典所特有的寓言性的隐喻功能,通过对可译性的阐述,将原作和译作由于翻译而建立的语言层面上的关系升华到超越了语言的人文意义上的关系。更重要的是,德里达在继承本雅明的基础上提出系统的“相关的”翻译的翻译观,笔者认为这是对本雅明的重大超越,也是说明解构主义翻译观日臻成熟的具有里程碑意义的重要标志。它将和谐的精神在语言以及所有事物的相关性中演绎得入木三分,使其达到“风触及风琴一样”那般深邃,充分彰显了解构精神的精髓。第六章以对文学作品的文学性的阐释为前提,回归文本,探讨解构主义翻译观在其宏大的哲学背景下对于文学翻译的微观应用。通过将解构主义翻译观与文学作品的文学性相融合后笔者发现,前者对后者至少有着以下几点启示意义：第一,文学翻译应忠实于意指；第二,文学翻译应体现语言的亲缘性；第三,解构式解读是文学翻译的前提条件；第四,文学翻译应采用拱廊直译。拱廊直译指的就是本雅明在“译者的任务”中所倡议的那种能够让原作的光芒照进译作的直译,笔者认为它是一种既译词、又译味的直译,在根本上有别于传统译论中寻求字当句对的直译。本章的论述表明,文学翻译应当寻找语言间意指方式的和谐,而后在语言和谐的颤音中释放出那个失落的纯语言(真理)。第七章是结论,主要是对以上章节的讨论进行总结和概括,同时指出本论文的主要特色和贡献。笔者认为,解构主义翻译观从其哲学渊源到它的主要思想直至它对文学翻译的启示都蕴含着深刻的和谐主题。具体地说,这种和谐包含两层含义：其一,解构主义翻译观在哲学、语言、文学与翻译中穿行时利用这些领域间内在的相关性让它们相互阐释,互为补充,展现出秘响旁通的和谐景象；其二,解构主义翻译观本身表达了实现语言王国的和谐的愿望,解构主义哲学本身更表达了实现全世界和谐的宏大愿望。故而,解构主义翻译观所体现的和谐精神是一种多声部的和谐交响曲,它用翻译象征着一个万事万物在互补中共生的理想世界。更多还原

【Abstract】 Deconstruction translation theory, with its root in deconstruction philosophy, has been a topic of heated debate, especially regarding its rationality, ever since its conception. Taking this status quo into consideration, this dissertation undertakes a fundamental and comprehensive critique of the philosophy of deconstruction and its expression in the translation field in light of its progress from Benjamin to Derrida, two of the most outstanding scholars of this theory, in the hope of clarifying some of its key concepts. Hence, the dissertation goes further to explore the value of this translation theory for literary translation by scrutinizing the kinship between the theory and the literariness of literary works. Finally, it is argued that deconstruction translation theory strikes a multi-layer note of harmony through the channels of philosophy, language and literature, and thus distinguishes harmony as a major theme of the theory.The dissertation falls into seven chapters.Chapter One serves as an introduction of this study. It makes a brief investigation of the theme of harmony embedded in deconstruction theory, the significance of this theory for translation studies as a whole, and the genetic relationship between Derrida’s thought about translation and Benjamin’s as well. The author argues that the value of deconstruction as a translation theory is not only reflected in its profound insights about all the key issues of translation, but specifically in its enlightenment for literary translation, because all the major concepts of deconstruction translation theory, such as its negation of the fixed meaning and fixed interpretation of a text, its viewpoint about the task of translation/the translator as a pursuer of truth rather than a porter of meaning, and so on, are in perfect harmony with the literariness of literary works. Despite the literal meaning of destruction conveyed by its name, the deconstruction theory of translation actually strikes a forte note of harmony in language and highlights the theme of harmony in humanity thereafter, which is eloquently proved by its progress from Benjamin to Derrida. Though Benjamin did not label his thought with "deconstruction", the high level of genetic similarity between his thought about translation and Derrida’s actually identifies him as the origin of this school of thought of translation. Chapter Two is an in-depth theoretical review of the evolution of deconstruction translation theory from its philosophical origin, including a literature review of deconstruction as a school of philosophy and a theory of translation. The author argues that Heidegger’s idea of Dasein and Saussure’s thought of structuralism contribute most to the conception of deconstruction. Although deconstruction intends to distinguish itself from the other thoughts with its rebellious characteristics, it ends up in failure in its wrestling with traditional philosophy and Plato. Nevertheless, it does make itself stand out differently with a series of creative concepts such as differance, trace and dissemination because they reshuffle the traditional relationship between the signifier and the signified, restore the innate relevance of languages, refill languages with proactive vigor and hence retrieve an initial harmony in the language and the universe. Furthermore, these concepts all find powerful expression in translation via their interpretations about the fundamental issues of translation and bring to light the deconstruction theory of translation. To name some, deconstruction translation theory argues that the original does not enjoy the privilege of authority any longer; translation is not meant to transport meaning, but a regulated transformation of language; the goal of translation is to construct a harmonious world of language, and so on.In the meanwhile, the author points out that deconstruction as both a philosophy and a translation theory have encountered frequent misinterpretation both in China and the West due to the following four reasons:first, the obscurity of its prime writings is challenging for most readers; second, the loss of humanist spirit in this theory is traumatizing for appropriate interpretation of it, because scholars growing up in the tradition of new criticism are so addicted to wordplay that they tend to neglect the humanist spirit of the theory while applying it to the interpretation of literary works; third, most scholars’ view of its role as merely a methodology causes the loss of its philosophical significance; fourth, the combination of the oriental flavor of Zen and Derrida’s western style of argument causes great difficulty with reading comprehension. Therefore, it is of great necessity for scholars to make a close reading of all its major writings and interpret it in light of its philosophical origin so as to have a real grasp of its significance.Chapter Three consists of a close reading of two of Benjamin’s major works of translation and language:"The Task of the Translator" and "On Language as Such and On the Language of Man", which serves as a foundation for the interpretation of the major issues in Benjamin’s translation theory, including the nature and goal of translation,(un)translatability, the origin/the translation relationship, pure language, the task of the translator and the standard of translation. It is argued that on the one hand, the theme of harmony already makes its debut in Benjamin’s thought of translation; on the other hand, the harmony ends up dancing in fetters because of the overwhelming impact of religion upon Benjamin.Chapter Four is an exploration of the relationship between Benjamin and Derrida via an examination of Derrida’s writing of "Babel", half of which is Derrida’s interpretation of Benjamin. Just like what Joseph F. Graham points out in his article "Around and About Babel" that most of Benjamin’s thought is improved in Derrida’s theory, and "Babel" is a perfect evidence of this inheritance. Among other things, Derrida interprets Benjamin’s concept of pure language as truth while somehow reasonably maintaining its original religious stance and thus achieves a better balance between religion and humanity and brings this concept much closer to the human world. Like pure language, truth never really shows up physically to human beings, but we can become relevant to it via translation. Therefore, as Derrida says, translation is a kind of experience, and vice versa. In a word, Derrida’s thought of translation demonstrated in "Babel" brings to full play the harmony of language, and promotes the spirit of harmony in humanity sense.Chapter Five addresses Derrida’s translation theory specifically by making an analysis of his paper "What’s Relevant Translation?", which has triggered a great deal of misreadings. With a careful interpretation, it is argued that "relevant translation" is the translation that is meant to sublime, purify, regulate, internalize and redeem language. It is a milestone evidence of the internalization and sublimation of Benjamin’s translation theory by Derrida, in which the theme of harmony is interpreted via the relevance of language and things in general in such a profound manner that it is just like "the way an aeolian harp is touched by the wind". It is a vivid demonstration of the quintessential spirit of deconstruction.Chapter Six studies the application of deconstruction translation theory in literary translation with an interpretation of the literariness of literary works as the foundation. The result of the study shows that there are four enlightening tips for literary translation by deconstruction: first, literary translation should be faithful to the intention of the original text; second, literary translation should demonstrate the kinship among mundane languages; third, a deconstructive way of textual analysis is the prerequisite for literary translation; fourth, an "arcade" type of literal translation can be applied to literary translation. It is argued that the arcade literal translation is neither the literal nor the free translation in traditional sense, but a translation strategy meant to release the truth in the original text literally. In a word, the task of literary translation is to seek harmony in modes of intention between worldly languages, and thus retrieve the long lost pure language in the harmonious echo of languages.Chapter Seven is the conclusion. It makes a brief summary of the findings of the research as well as its theoretical significance. It is pointed out that harmony is a profound theme of deconstruction both as a philosophy and a translation theory. The connotation of harmony can be understood in the following two aspects:first, when deconstruction travels between the fields of philosophy, language, literature and translation, it demonstrates and makes full use of the relevance between them and creates a harmonious environment; second, the theory of deconstruction highlights the initial harmony in language and in universe respectively. As a result, the theme of harmony in deconstruction demonstrates itself as a multi-part symphony, symbolizing an ideal world in which things all enrich each other and grow up together.更多还原