实践哲学视角下的译者主体性探索

【作者】 熊兵娇；

【导师】 谢天振；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 翻译学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 翻译是译者与作者沟通心灵的桥梁,翻译也是译语与译语文化发展的基石,它见证了文化的冲突与融合,它也诠释了人类的共存与对话。长期以来,传统理论思想将翻译禁锢在语言转换的“围城”中,将“忠实”与“对等”确立为译者必须恪尽职守的行为准则。然而,翻译研究的“文化转向”启发我们,要跳出纯语言的藩篱,关注翻译所处的文化世界。从文化角度思考翻译,我们看到翻译永远不只是对原作意义的简单复归,翻译中充满了两种文化的交合、渗透与对抗。从某种意义上说,翻译的过程就是文本意义在新的文化时空中的重构过程。本文所进行的主体性探索就是在这样一种话语语境中展开。本文选取实践哲学为理论视角,指出译者主体性研究要走出理论哲学视角下的观念世界,超越主体性那种自我、自我意识的主观理性的匡囿。同时,本文借鉴马克思实践哲学的主体与主体性概念,对译者主体及其主体性内涵进行了重新界定,强调译者是实践主体,突显译者主体的实践性。因为实践主体是一种社会性与历史性的存在物,译者也由此获得了社会性与历史性的主体性本质。本文以译者作为实践主体的社会性与历史性为论述的基点,通过描述与解释、理论诠释与个案实证相结合的方法,分析与论证译者主体的社会性与历史性在翻译过程中的介入。本文旨在揭示,译者作为实践主体是唯一性的。马克思实践哲学强调只有人,且必须是参与实践的人才能成为主体,由此,本文对主体的界定就排除了作者、读者、接受环境等成为主体的可能。同时,本文还通过对译者的社会性与历史性的阐释与论证,来证明译者的主体性并非就是主观能动性或者创造性的主观自主与自为,社会性与历史性彰显了作为主体的译者在翻译实践的过程中要受到其自身所处的社会与历史现实境遇的影响与制约。本文在关注译者在翻译实践中翻译什么的同时,也更突出强调译者的社会性与历史性允许他(她)去翻译什么。在论证与分析中,本文始终将翻译与译者的社会性与历史性相结合,考察译者翻译活动背后的现实背景是什么,是什么因素促使译者选择了不同的翻译策略,又是什么使译者对原作做出或增、或减、或删、或改的举措。本文认为,翻译的过程就是译者的社会性与历史性参与意义重构的过程。译者的社会性与历史性不仅体现为译者所处的社会历史的现实语境对翻译实践的影响与制约;同时,译者的社会性与历史性也决定了译者在翻译实践中必然反映自己身处其中的社会与历史的条件与主题。显然,我们对译者的社会性与历史性的考察,无疑将可以再现翻译与译者的一种社会真实性和历史真实性,由此,翻译成为了译者居停的现实社会与历史的缩影和照映。倡导译者发挥主体性,就是要求译者在翻译过程中要具有一种社会意识与历史意识,因地制宜,适时而动,只有这样才能使译作成功地接受社会历史的检验。更多还原

【Abstract】 Translation is a spiritual bridge of communication between the translator and the writer. It witnesses the conflicts and integration between cultures, and shows the dialogue and co-existence of human beings. It also lays the footstone for the development of the target language and culture. For quite a long time, translation as the lingual transformation in the traditional sense had imprisoned itself in "a besieged city", in which "faithfulness" and "equivalence" were rooted as do’s and don’ts for the translator. However, the "cultural turn" of translation studies gives us enlightenments to transcend the lingual boundary, and to divert more attention to the cultural world in which translation takes place. Thinking of translation from the cultural aspect, we have found that translation is never a simple reversion to the original meaning, but is imbued with the hybridization, permeation, and counteraction between two cultures. And in a sense, the translating process is essentially the reconstructing process of the textual meaning in a new space-time of culture. Our exploration on the subjectivity weighs anchor under such a context.From the perspective of Practical Philosophy, this thesis points out that study of the translator’s subjectivity needs us to go out of the conceptual world as embodied in the theoretical philosophy, and meanwhile to get beyond the sense of subjectivity restricted to the self and self-consciousness of subjective rationality. With reference to the concepts of subject and subjectivity in Marx’s Practical Philosophy, we have redefined the subject and the subjectivity of the translator, highlighting the translator as the subject of practice and his/her practicality. The subject of practice is a kind of social and historical existence, because of which the translator possesses his or her sociality and historicity as a subject.Based on the point of the sociality and historicity of the translator as the subject of practice, this thesis, through description and explanation as well as theoretical interpretation and case studies, analyzes and demonstrates the obtrusion of the subject’s sociality and historicity in the translating process. It aims at revealing that the translator as a subject of practice is unique, and provides a new definition of the subject without taking the author, reader, the reception context, etc. into consideration, which is because what Marx’s practical philosophy stresses is that only human beings can be the subject, and that the subject is the one who takes part in the practice. Meantime, through the interpretation and argumentation of the translator’s sociality and historicity in the translating process, the thesis manifests that the translator’s subjectivity is not merely the translator’s self-determination and self-independence implied in subjective initiative or creativity. The sociality and historicity of the translator have shown that the translating process is inevitably under the influence and restrain of the social and historical reality in which the translator exists. The thesis is concerned with what the translator translates, but otherwise it focuses more attention on what the translator is allowed to translate by his or her sociality and historicity. In the whole process of analysis, the thesis constantly attaches importance to the mutual relation between translating and the translator’s sociality and historicity, and examines what is the real background behind the translator’s activity, what factors have affected the translator to decide the translating strategies, and what has caused the translator to add, subtract, delete, or change what the source text originally means.This thesis holds that the translating process is a reconstruction process of meaning in which the translator makes his or her sociality and historicity present. The translator’s sociality and historicity, on the one hand, can be embodied as the influences of the social and historical reality on the translator’s practice, and on the other hand, can be a proof to that the translator’s practice will unavoidably be intertwined with the social, historical conditions and ideological motifs of the very society he/she lives in. Obviously, the examination of the translator’s sociality and historicity can undoubtedly re-present a social and historical truthfulness of the translator as well as of translating. Translation therefore becomes an epitome of the society and a certain historical stage that the translator resides in. Thus, advocating the full play of the translator’s subjectivity requires the translator to obtain a kind of social and historical awareness in the translating process so as to adapt his or her translation to the space-time of the target culture, and it’s only in this way that the works of translation can be tested effectively by the society and the history.更多还原