【作者】 赵颖；

【导师】 蔡新乐；

【作者基本信息】 河南大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 文学,一般认为是想象的创造物。但从想象入手来研究文学翻译,研究想象在文学翻译中的作用的翻译思想家却并不多见。相反,由于深受认识论中心主义的影响,人们往往以理性为终极的运思模式,以挖掘文本中“不变的”意义为己任,忽视文学本身特有的“反逻各斯”倾向。如此一来,文学翻译将可能会在逻辑单一化思想的掌控下,成为理性“化异为我”的工具,“他者”因而也就成为被压制和漠视的对象。事实上,在传统形而上学趋向终结,“逻各斯中心主义”正遭受全面批判的语境下,想象并不只是在艺术创造领域才能纵横驰骋,它已经成为可以摆脱理性束缚的一条通途,让我们在概念思维停止的地方“自由飞翔”。在这样的语境下,探讨想象和文学翻译的关系、文学翻译中想象可能发挥的作用,便具有以下四个方面的意义:一,能够揭示文学翻译走出“逻各斯中心主义”束缚的必要性和可能性;二,可以彰显文学翻译的“反逻各斯”倾向;三,有助于实现文学翻译的伦理:创造“自我”与“他者”的“团结”;四,促使我们重新审视想象和文学翻译的关系,从而可以更加准确地把握文学翻译的“诗化”本质。本论文采用理论探索和实例分析相结合的办法,来研究想象和翻译的关系问题。首先,依托罗蒂想象创造公共“团结”的思想,从学理上分析论证想象超越理性束缚的必要性和可能性及其在文学翻译中发挥作用可能的表现形式。之后,在学理分析的基础上,通过剖析具体的翻译行为和个别译本,进一步阐释这种理论探索的合理性和可行性。最后,推出想象可以实现文学翻译中“自我”和“他者”的和谐相处,达成她们/他们/它们的“团结”。本论文共分六章。第一章为绪论。本章以本论文的研究背景为起点,阐明了想象和文学翻译关系研究的重要意义,并对国内外相关研究文献进行了梳理和分析,指出现有研究存在的不足之处,进而提出本研究的重点和可能的创新之处,最后介绍本文的理论依据、研究对象、研究方法与研究步骤,以及各章的主要内容。第二章主要论证,在“后形而上学”的语境下,想象实现文学翻译“团结”的可能性。首先,本章通过历史回顾指出,想象的历史就是摆脱理性附庸地位、自由“飞升”的历史。其次,在历史回顾的基础上,推出想象在“后形而上学”语境下的定义和特点。我们认为,它是将“不在场”的事物带出,继而使之与“在场”的事物“统合”,最终将它们构建为“共时性”整体的能力或过程。它具有历史的、自由的、创造的和伦理的四个特点。再次,在简单介绍罗蒂的新实用主义哲学思想之后,对他所提出的公共“团结”思想以及想象在其中所起到的作用加以勾勒。简单说来,“团结”指向“自我”对“他者”的责任,是“自我”对“他者”的容忍与接纳。想象,在罗蒂的新实用主义哲学中以“创造隐喻的官能”形式出现。启动想象,以“设身处地”(想象的第一个作用)为前提,通过建构乌托邦营造出“诗化”的语境或空间(想象的第二个作用),利用再描述(想象的第三个作用)就可以创造出公共“团结”。最后,通过论证可以把创造“团结”的想象视为一种再描述的官能,同时把翻译视为一种再描述,本章得出结论:可以把翻译视为一种形式的想象。如此一来,翻译在想象力的观照下,便可以实现“自我”与“他者”的和谐相处,实现她们/他们/它们的“团结”。在论证了想象可以创造文学翻译的“团结”之后,本文把想象的上述三个作用加以细化,进而把它们相应地运用于翻译过程的三个阶段(即起始的面对“他者”;随后与“他者”展开交流与沟通;最后通过再描述完成翻译过程),并在后文三章之中,对其实现文学翻译的“团结”的作用进行阐述。第三章讨论想象在翻译的第一个阶段中所起到的作用,即在面对“他者”时,想象如何可以飞离“在场”实现“自我”对“他者”“设身处地”的认同。本章是以批判“在场的形而上学”对翻译的掌控来展开论述的。首先,对“在场”及其“主客二分”的表现形式进行界定,并进一步明确这种表现形式所具有的外在性、理性至上和同一性特征。其次,从翻译理论建构、具体的翻译行为和个别译本的某些表现三个角度,来分析上述三个特征,并试图阐明“在场的形而上学”操控下的翻译是如何“化异为我”的。再次,引入想象的“飞离在场”帮助翻译摆脱“化异为我”的工具论地位。想象的飞离“在场”主要包含离开“在场”,超越“在场(的形而上学)”和“设身处地”三个层面的意思。它可以通过移情来实现。移情就是要把“他者”视为另一个同样独特的生命个体,在“物我合一”、“人我合一”中去“设身处地”地体验事物和“他者”的“是其如是”。最后,论证移情如何反拨翻译中理性“自我”对“他者”的暴力压制,实现对“他者”“设身处地”的认同。研究表明,移情的引入,可以从理论上修正斯坦纳所提出的“阐释的运作”中暗含的暴力改造倾向;能够纠正“化异为我”的翻译行为;可以超越主客二分的概念化思维,在直观中对“他者”进行整体的把握。在通过移情把“他者”视为另一个同样的生命个体之后,随之而来的便是“自我”与“他者”这两个主体之间的沟通与交流的问题。第四章探究想象在翻译的第二个阶段中所起的作用。即想象如何通过“居间统合”实现“自我”与“他者”的交流与沟通。论述的展开以界定何为“居间统合”开始。想象的“居间统合”是指,想象能够营造出一个“自我”与“他者”对视、交流、同生共在的“诗化”空间,并在其中促成二者之间的“诗意”统一:它不以概念的形成和“同质化”的出现为最终目标,而是要促成二者在保持彼此差异的同时趋向会合。其次,指出理性至上意味着,“间”的缺失在翻译中会导致以交流为己任的翻译沦为理性“单一话语”的传声筒,进而造成翻译本身的缺失。再次,阐明想象建立的“诗化”空间能够保证翻译的“间”性,同时以杂合的形式实现“自我”与“他者”的“诗意”统一。最后,从概念思维和想象思维的统一、译者和作者的生命应和以及原语文化和译语文化的调和三个方面,以几个典型译文为案例,来分析这种“诗意”统一在文学翻译中可能的表现形式。“自我”与“他者”的“诗意”统一,必然要在译入语语境中“开花结果”。因此,下一章主要探讨文学“意象”在译入语语境中的“再造”,即想象在翻译的第三个阶段中所要发挥的作用。第五章的主题是,想象通过“意象再造”来实现文学翻译的“团结”。首先,对“意象”加以界定,并通过历史回顾,推出“意象”的作用。我们认为,与理性试图趋向不变的概念王国不同,“意象”力图做到的是,在以语言为媒介的同时,超越语言的概念束缚,通过切入生活世界,来表达生活的脉动。其次,在分析雪莱和克罗齐对翻译的看法的基础上,指出文学“意象”是无法机械复制的。再次,阐明“意象”可以通过想象的“再描述”,来实现它在跨过语言边界之后的“再造”。这种“再造”,由于是以移情为前提,用对话作铺垫,因而是一种“通而不同”的“意象再造”。最后,论证这种“再造意象”的杂合性:“自我”与“他者”的生命汇合,决定了我们虽然是从“自我”出发,却不会回归一个不变的“自我”。相反,我们在改变“他者”的同时,也在改变着“自我”,以及“自我”与“他者”共在的语言与文化环境。这意味着,“自我”与“他者”的交流与融通,不会走向单一和简约中的“同一”,而只会走向多元的和谐共存,因而最终能够实现文学翻译的“反逻各斯”倾向,达成文学翻译的“团结”。第六章是全文的结论。此章首先对本论文的主要内容进行了总结,进而点出了本研究的局限与不足以及进一步研究的方向。本文以在“后形而上学”语境下自由飞升的想象为着眼点,以罗蒂所提出的想象创造公共“团结”的思想为依托,把想象引入到文学翻译研究中来。通过探讨想象在整个文学翻译过程中的作用,最终得出结论:文学翻译在想象的呵护之下,由于能促成“他者”的伦理,促成“自我”与“他者”的“团结”,同时显现出文本“诗化”的本质,因此,它可以保证文学作品在新的语境中生机勃发、生意盎然。作为探讨想象和文学翻译关系的初步尝试,本研究在分析的深度和广度上有待进一步的深化和拓展。此外,这一课题的研究,还可以从想象在个人创造中的作用以及想象在历史变迁中的作用等视角展开。更多还原

【Abstract】 Literature is generally considered a creation of imagination. Yet few translation theorists devote themselves to the research on the role imagination plays in literary translation. On the contrary, scholars, under the profound influence of the epistemology-centered thought, are apt to dig out the“ultimate”meaning of a given text in a logical way in literary translation study while unconsciously neglecting the intrinsic“anti-logic”orientation of literature. Literary translation may thus become an instrument of reason, which“transforms the foreign into the self”through logical reduction, with the Other consequently being ignored and suppressed. As a matter of fact, imagination, with traditional metaphysics tending to end and logocentrism under all-round criticism, is no longer confined to artistic creation, but has rather become an easy way for shaking off the fetters of reason to“fly freely”where concepts stop.Against such a background, this study on the relationship between imagination and literary translation, and on the possible role of imagination in literary translation, is significant in the following aspects: Firstly, it can reveal the necessity and possibility of breaking the fetters of logocentrism in literary translation; Secondly, it helps attain the“anti-logic”orientation of literary translation; Thirdly, it contributes to putting into effect the ethics of literary translation, namely the“solidarity”between the Other and the self; and Fourthly, it calls for examining the relationship between imagination and literary translation from a new perspective, so as to grasp the“poetic”essence of literary translation.As an integration of theoretical exploration and case study, the present paper centers around the relationship between imagination and literary translation. To begin with, this dissertation, in the light of Richard Rorty’s thinking about imagination creating public“solidarity”, lays bare the necessity and possibility for imagination to outstrip reason and explores the roles imagination can play in literary translation. Based on such theoretical investigation, a detailed analysis of translating activities with examples is to be conducted to demonstrate the rationality and feasibility of the present research, which boils down to the faith that imagination can achieve harmony or“solidarity”between the self and the Other in literary translation.This dissertation comprises six chapters.Chapter One is an introduction. It starts with the research background along with the significance of the study, and proceeds to review the current literature on this project at home and abroad. Following an analysis of the deficiencies of previous studies, some innovative points of the study, presumably the author’s own, are advanced. After that are the theoretical basis, the object of the study, the methodology and procedures of the investigation, and the main contents of the entire research work.Chapter Two mainly demonstrates the possibility of imagination creating“solidarity”in literary translation.Beginning with an overall historical review, this chapter points out that the history of imagination has been one of breaking away from the dominance of reason to fly freely. Next, a definition and four prominent features of imagination are outlined in the context of“post-metaphysics”. Imagination, so to speak, is a process or faculty to bring the absent back into existence to construct a concomitant unity of absence and presence through poesy. It is historical, free, creative, and ethical. Thirdly, this chapter sketches Rorty’s idea of public“solidarity”, and the roles imagination plays in it together with a brief introduction to his neo-pragmatism. Rorty defines imagination as a faculty of creating metaphor and argues that it can create public“solidarity”which, as the responsibility of the self for the Other, is related to tolerance and acceptance of the Other. The creation of public“solidarity”by imagination, in brief, involves“situating the self in the position of the Other”(the first role of imagination), construction of a utopia as a“poetic”context or space (the second role of imagination), and“redescription”(the third role of imagination). Finally, it demonstrates that imagination can be defined as a faculty of“redescription”and translation as a form of “redescription”. In this sense, translation becomes a form of imagination, making the coexistence of the Other and the self, namely their“solidarity”, possible.In view of the previous discussion, the dissertation proceeds to investigate, in the following three chapters, how imagination can create the“solidarity”in literary translation. The investigation goes with enriching and substantiating first the three roles played by imagination in creating public“solidarity”, and then adopting them accordingly in the three phases of translation process (i.e. facing the Other, communicating with the Other, and finishing translating through“redescription”).Chapter Three explores the role of imagination in the first phase of translation process——how the self, when facing the Other, identifies with the Other by means of imagination’s“flying off presence”. This chapter begins with a criticism of the dominance of“metaphysics of presence”in translation. Firstly, a description is given of presence and its manifestation——subject/object dichotomy, which has three features, i.e. objectivity, logocentrism, and the sameness. Next, the representation of the three features in translation is analyzed from the perspective of translation theory construction, translating behaviors, and specific version analysis, with an intention to reveal how translation, in the predominance of“metaphysics of presence”, is reduced to an instrument for reason which“transforms the foreign into the self”. Thirdly, imagination’s“flying off presence”is introduced to lift translation out of its instrumental status.“Flying off presence”involves leaving presence, transcending (metaphysics of) presence and“situating the self in the position of the Other”, which can be realized through empathy. Empathy means that the self sees the Other as the same individual as his/herself and experiences the Other“as it is”in the union of the self and the Other in order to pave the way for“solidarity”. Finally, this chapter investigates how empathy frees the Other from the suppression and violence of reason, and accomplishes the self’s identification with the Other in the Other’s position in translation. The study shows that the introduction of empathy in translation can revise the violent tendency in the“hermeneutic motion”propounded by Steiner, correct the violent translation behaviors, and transcend the conceptual mindset so as to intuitively contemplate the Other on the whole.With the Other assuming individuality comes the question: how should the self communicate with the Other?Chapter Four elaborates on how imagination, in the second phase of translation process, can achieve a“poetic”unity of the self and the Other by means of the“poetic unification in-betweenness”. In the first place, this chapter points out that the“poetic unification in-betweenness”signifies that imagination is capable of creating a“poetic”space in which the self and the Other can start their communication face to face, and eventually attain their“poetic”unification, which aims not at conceptualization or homogeneity, but hybridity with their respective differences. In the second place, it argues that logocentrism is intrinsically related to the absence of“in-betweenness”, which may reduce translation to a microphone of metalanguage for reason, and eventually to the absence of translation itself. Thirdly, it shows that the construction of the“poetic”space by imagination can guarantee the“in-betweenness”of translation while realizing the“poetic”unification of the self and the Other in the form of hybridity. With the help of typical case study, this chapter ends with an analysis of the possible manifestation of hybridity from the aspects of the union of conceptualized thinking and imagination, the chorus of the writer and the translator as well as the consonance of the source culture and the target culture.It is inevitable that the“poetic”unification of the self and the Other will“flower and bear fruits”in the target language. Therefore, the following chapter will be devoted to the recreation of literary“image”in the target language——the role of imagination in the third phase of translation process.Chapter Five argues that imagination can achieve the“solidarity”of literary translation by means of“image recreation”. It first defines“image”and figures out its function on grounds of a historical review. It is held that“image”, rather than representing an invariant concept, is created to express life imbued with energy and vigor in the form of language but transcending the conceptualization of language. Based on an analysis of Shelley’s and Croce’s ideas about translation, this paper points out that“image”can not be copied mechanically. Next is an elaboration on how“image”can be recreated in the target language through the“redescription”by imagination. The recreation, as a result of empathy and communication, is characterized by its“communication in difference”. Finally, it affirms that the hybridity of the recreated“image”predicates that the self, though starting for their own sake, will not return to an invariant self. As a matter of fact, we will not only change the self and the Other, but also languages and cultures in which we coexist with each other. The change shows that the communication between the self and the Other will not result in singularity or the sameness through reduction, but will accomplish the“anti-logic”orientation and the“solidarity”of literary translation.Chapter Six is the conclusion. It summarizes the main contents of the research and points out the limitations of the present study and the direction of further studies on the subject as well. The dissertation, with the introduction of imagination in the“post-metaphysics”context to literary translation study on the basis of Rorty’s theory that imagination can create public“solidarity”, concludes that translation can guarantee the energy and vigor of literary works in the target language because, with the help of imagination, it is capable of realizing the ethics of the Other, the“solidarity”of the self and the Other, and at the same time foregrounding literature’s“poetic”essence.The present study, as a tentative research on the relationship between imagination and literary translation, leaves room for further research. Among othe things, say, it could also be conducted from the perspective of the role imagination plays in individual creation, and in historical changes.更多还原