【作者】 刘爱华；

【导师】 孙迎春；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 译者是翻译活动的直接实施者,文学译者的各项活动一直备受翻译批评家的关注。本文对文学译者研究进行理论探讨,研究主要围绕两个设想展开：1)生态翻译学的新探索、新发现,或者对翻译的新认识会为翻译批评及其各分支带来新的启示；2)文学译者批评实践需要相关理论指导。基于此,本文阐释和拓展了生态翻译学理论中的“译者中心论”和“翻译生态环境”等译学新观点、新概念,析取相关内容与翻译批评发展趋势和发展诉求相融合,进而在此基础上提出一个具可操作性的文学译者批评模式,为文学译者研究提供理论指导。论文由七个章节以及导言和结语组成。导言主要阐述了整篇文章的研究动因、研究假设、研究目的和框架。第一章为文献回顾,涵盖翻译批评和生态翻译学两个领域的研究内容,为融合两方面研究以及提出文学译者批评之名作准备。本章前半部分在综述翻译批评理论建构、内部分支间相互关系等方面的研究成果之后,梳理出翻译批评研究客体、批评标准、批评原则和批评方法的多元化发展趋势。其中重点指出,译者如今已经得到翻译批评家的关注,以译者为主要批评对象的翻译批评实践在数量上仅次于以译本为主要批评对象的翻译批评实践。本章后半部分是对生态翻译学的系统介绍,分析了这种生态视角翻译研究的产生背景之后,对其主要观点和概念、理论拓展和应用尝试进行全面回顾,并进行了简要评论。鉴于生态翻译学理论自身还有待发展和完善,下面两章主要致力于生态翻译学核心概念和观点的重新阐释,从中析取对文学译者批评研究有助益的成分。第二章聚焦生态翻译学视阈下的译者。“译者中心论”揭示了译者在翻译过程中的中心地位,是继承了以往译者研究的成果。它将译者放在翻译过程和翻译生态环境中进行考察,使译者和原作、译作一起构成翻译活动的权力三角。这个概念蕴含的是四个以译者为视点的活动机制,以拓展的、宏观的翻译过程为线对译者活动进行系统描述——“事前预防”是准备机制,“多维适应与转换”是行动机制,“整合适应选择度”是评价机制,“事后追惩”是检查机制。“译者中心论”因而被解释为一种转向译者的翻译研究视点,让我们从译者的视角切入翻译研究：各活动机制不仅描述了译者的主动选择还点明了译者的被动适应,译者活动描述更加全面。另一方面,生态翻译学将译者素养(即翻译能力)列为翻译评价参数之一却未进行深入研究,鉴于此,本文借鉴PACTE(巴塞罗那翻译能力研究小组)通过经验与实验相结合获得的研究成果进行生态翻译学“译者中心论”引导下的翻译能力研究。研究得出翻译能力由七个子能力构成,即专业能力、双语能力、社会文化能力、交际能力、心理能力、文体能力和策略能力,这些子能力将成为文学译者批评的重要参数。本章最后讨论了“译者中心论”的启示：这个概念点明了译者的中心地位和活动机制,夯实了译者研究的合理性,并使生态翻译学成为研究文学译者批评可以借鉴的基础理论之一。第三章细致讨论了生态翻译学的另一个核心概念——“生态翻译环境”。通过词源分析以及语义演变分析,研究进行了概念拓展,将译者纳入生态翻译环境,消除了原定义中将译者与环境割裂开的质疑,探讨了译者与翻译生态环境的从属关系：它们是部分与整体之间的关系,译者作为能动的个体与翻译生态环境之间又存在一定的互动或者相互作用。其后,文章详细梳理了翻译生态环境的构成因素,剖析了翻译生态环境的特性——一个多维、动态、进化的多因素集合体,其内涵比“语境”这一概念更加丰富。这个概念重申了整体性原则和协同进化原则,自此研究任何一个翻译因素都不能采用孤立的、静止的视角,这一点对翻译批评极具启示意义。第四章开篇即通过译者研究、翻译家研究和译者批评这三个概念的辨析阐明了文学译者批评的实质。文学译者批评被明确界定并纳入翻译学“应用”分支目录下。接着,文章指出,文学译者批评个案数量众多,仅次于文本批评个案,然而统计数据显示,文学译者批评的理论研究却相当匮乏。再者,以译本批评为目标的各理论不能完全照搬去评价译者这个能动个体,同时,翻译批评学的构建又更加凸显出文学译者批评理论的匮乏和个案研究与理论探索之间的不对称。因此,必须进行文学译者批评的理论构建。文章接着指出,生态翻译学在本质上是一个关注译者的理论,以译者为研究视点并提出了一系列译者活动描述机制和研究原则,因此对文学译者批评实践很有指导意义,对文学译者批评的理论构建也具有一定的借鉴意义。此外,生态翻译学提倡以整体观进行翻译研究,认为译者及其译本是不可分割的整体,并且提出了一个多维研究框架,同时奉行协同进化原则,强调翻译影响因素之间的互动与变化。生态翻译学与文学译者批评在研究视点、研究原则、研究方法等方面存在共同之处,因此我们相信融合这两个翻译研究领域,借鉴生态翻译学理论中的合理成分进行文学译者批评的理论探索和模式构建是可行的。文学译者批评的各理论问题分两章进行研究。第五章探讨文学翻译批评的原则、方法、内容和标准,第六章讨论批评程序、译者能力评估以及文学翻译批评的重要性。文学翻译批评的原则是一个两级体系：客观性和整体性是总原则,统领了四个子原则,即阐释性原则、宏观研究原则、个体性研究原则和历时视角原则。对译者的研究必须借助于译本研究,译本批评是译者批评的基础,因此译本批评的常用方法,包括文本分析法、对比法、抽样法、定性和定量法等,在译者批评研究中同样适用,此外,文学译者批评更加注重文献分析法、交谈法和问卷调查法这些更加贴近译者的研究方法。文学译者批评的核心内容是文学译者的翻译能力,同时辅以译本批评和社会文化批评,突出整体性研究。鉴于研究内容的多样化,文学译者批评的标准应该比文本批评的标准更加开放,涵盖更多维度。第六章建议文学译者批评分为五个步骤,由介绍译者的生平、翻译经历、翻译思想到评估其代表译作,再到评估译者翻译成就和明确译者在目标语社会文化中的地位。文章进而讨论阐释文学译者各项翻译活动和评估其翻译能力的方法与手段。此外,文章还指出,文学译者批评的先决条件必须兼顾批评者的主观素质和各项客观条件,而文学译者批评研究的重要性主要体现在连接翻译理论与译者批评实践、定位文学译者和启发翻译教学或为译者培养提供启示等三个方面。第七章以徐迟的翻译活动为例进行个案研究。简要介绍了徐迟这位中国现代著名作家的生平之后,文章细致考察其文学生涯、翻译生涯和文学翻译等方面的思想观点,并分析其代表译作《瓦尔登湖》。基于此,文章对徐迟的翻译活动进行阐释,对其翻译能力进行评估,最终将其定位为一位在现当代中国社会文化环境中富于探索精神并卓有成就的文学译者。在新模式指导下展开的徐迟研究相对较为全面,也较为客观,既展示了徐迟的文学翻译成就也点出了其不足之处。结语部分总结认为,本论文的主要贡献是结合生态翻译学的合理成分进行文学译者批评理论研究,具体包括：1)将“译者中心论”重释为转向译者的研究视点、拓展了翻译生态环境的范畴；2)将文学译者批评定义为对文学译者翻译活动进行分析和评价的研究活动,并将文学译者批评定位为文学翻译批评的一个分支；3)为系统的文学译者批评提供原则、方法、内容、步骤等方面的理论指导；4)以徐迟为个案进行文学译者批评研究。论文最后指出,这项尝试性研究有其重要性,但也存在一些局限,并就此领域的深入研究提出一些建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Translator is the practitioner of translating process and activities of literary translators have embraced an abiding concern from the translation critics. The present dissertation probes into the theoretical phase of literary translator studies based on two basic assumptions:1) eco-translatological thoughts can be employed in translation criticism; and2) cases of literary translator criticism need theoretical guidance. It endeavors to put forward a maneuverable model of literary translator criticism and provide theoretical support for literary translator studies through reinterpreting the major arguments and concepts in Eco-translatology, including mainly "translator-centeredness" and "translational eco-environment", and integrating relevant parts in them and the trends and call within translation criticism.The dissertation consists of seven chapters, in addition to Introduction and Conclusion. Introduction explicates the motivation, hypotheses, objectives and structure of the present study. Chapter One is a literature review of the current studies in both translation criticism and Eco-translatology to prepare for the coming integration of these two fields and most importantly the identification of literary translator criticism. In the first two sections, it provides a panorama of major findings in translation criticism (hereafter abbreviated as TC). It displays firstly previous discussions on TC theoretical construction and interrelations of TC sub-branches and then presents the pluralistic trends in this field in terms of research objects, criticizing criteria, principles and methods. What has been highlighted is the fact that the translator is now one criticizing object enjoying quantitative prominence just second to the translated texts (hereafter abbreviated as TT). The latter half of this chapter is an introduction and critical review of the main arguments, developments and application attempts of Eco-translatology. Findings in this ecological approach to translation studies are displayed in a comprehensive manner and their merits and faults are illuminated in a brief way. In view that Eco-translatology itself is under investigation, the ensuing two chapters are hence dedicated to the reinterpretation of its keynote concepts and arguments concerned to extract instructions to literary translator criticism.Chapter Two focuses on the translator in an Eco-translatological context."Translator-centeredness", a disclosure of the central role of translator in translating process, is a notion inherited and derived from translator studies. Situating the translator in translating process and translational eco-environment, it sets up a power triangle of the translator together with the source and target texts. This notion ushers in four working mechanisms centering on the translator which should be understood as a descriptive system of translator’s activities along the progression of the extended translating processes-"pre-event prevention" as the preparing mechanism,"multi-dimensional adaptation and transformation" as the acting mechanism,"degree of holistic adaptation and selection" as the evaluating mechanism and lastly "post-event penalty" and "survival of the fittest" as the checking mechanism."Translator-centeredness" is consequently decoded more as a research stance of being translator-oriented and the working mechanisms provide us a more comprehensive description of translator’s activities for its incorporation of both passive adaptation and active selection.On the other hand, in view that translator qualities, i.e., translation competence, have been skated around though argued as one parameter in the evaluating mechanism in Eco-translatology, a discussion of translation competence in light of this reinterpreted "translator-centeredness" follows, based on the findings of empirical-experimental research carried out by PACTE (Process in the Acquisition of Translation Competence and Evaluation). Seven subcompetences are suggested, namely, professional, bilingual, sociocultural, communicative, psychological, stylistic and strategic subcompetences, which will constitute the major content or parameter of literary translator criticism. This chapter is concluded with the implications of "translator-centeredness"-it reinforces the rationality of translator studies and lends Eco-translatology the power of serving as a possible theoretical basis to resort to when conducting studies on literary translators, with the illumination of the central role of the translator and the working mechanisms. In Chapter Three,"translational eco-environment", another keynote concept of Eco-translatology, is elaborated on. Based on an etymological analysis, the present dissertation expands the scope of translational eco-environment to cover the translator to clear up the detaching suspicion aroused by its original definition, and then discusses the affiliation of translator to translational eco-environment and their interaction. Then a construction analysis comes in to clarify the components of translational eco-environment and a discussion of its characteristics display its nature of being a multidimensional, dynamic and evolving complex, which distinguishes itself from the notion of "context" Holistic and coevolving principles are strengthened with this umbrella term and no factor of translation is hence to be evaluated or studied as isolated or stationary, which are highly implicative to translation criticism.Chapter Four opens with an endeavor to cast light on the essence of literary translator criticism by differentiating between translator studies, studies of expert translators and translator criticism. Literary translator criticism is clearly defined and located into the "applied" extensions of Translation Studies. Then it is pointed out that statistics highlight, however, the scarcity of theoretical explorations into literary translator criticism in contrast to the volume of case studies on literary translators, though they rank just second in number to those of TT criticism. In addition, theories targeting at TT criticism cannot satisfy the need for evaluating a subjective translator, and moreover, the construction of the Science of Translation Criticism sheds more light on this scarcity and imbalance. There emerges hence a pressing need for the theoretical construction of literary translator criticism.Theoretical explorations in translation criticism will resort to the findings in the "pure" side of Translation Studies. Eco-translatology cuts itself in here for its strength of being a theory of translator in essence which not only explicates a translator-oriented stance but also proposes a series of working mechanisms to describe the translation-related activities of the translator. Moreover, its argument for the inseparability of translator and his/her translations and its proposal of a multidimensional framework recommend holism and its emphasis on interactive changes illuminates its co-evolving principle. Common grounds in terms of research focus, principles and methodology between Eco-translatology and literary translator criticism are believed to ensure the fusion between these two lines within translation studies and pave the way for the ensuing theoretical explorations and model construction in literary translator criticism through reliance on rational parts in Eco-translatology.Theoretical issues of literary translator criticism to make up the criticizing model fall into Chapters Five and Six:the former probes into the principles, methods, contents and criteria and the latter elaborates on the procedures, translation competence assessment and significance of literary translator criticism. Chapter Five begins with an argument that the principles of literary translator criticism a two-graded system:objectivity and holism are two prevailing and general principles to incorporate four sub-principles, i.e., interpretivism, macroscopic view integrated with microscopic view, diachronic perspective and emphasis on individuality. Research methods significant for literary translator criticism, besides those inherited from TT criticism, are documentation, interviews and questionnaire surveys which focus more on the translators than on the translations. What constitute the core content or parameter of literary translator criticism are the subcompetences of the translator, and criticism of the literary TTs and that of the socioculture centered on the literary translator are two supportive parameters, rendering the criticism a holistic one in its true sense. In view of the diversity of research contents, the criteria of literary translator criticism should be more open and multidimensional than those of TT criticism.In Chapter Six, a five-step plan has been designed for guiding the case studies of literary translator criticism, moving from the introduction of the translator’s life history to that of his translating experiences and thoughts, to the assessment of his/her masterpiece translation(s) and finally to the evaluation of and location of this translator in the TL socioculture. Ways and manners of interpreting the translation-related activities of the literary translator and assessing his/her translation competence have been displayed. Prerequisites of literary translator criticism have been argued to involve subjective qualities of the critics and objective conditions and the significance of literary translator criticism is mainly embodied by its bridging the theory and practice, locating literary translators and illuminating translation teaching. Chapter Seven is a case study of Xu Chi as a literary translator. The life, educational and translating experiences of this established writer of contemporary Chinese literature are addressed, his translating activities and thoughts on literary translation and translatability are scrutinized, his Chinese translations of Walden are analyzed and compared and his literary translation competence is assessed. Xu Chi is finally labeled as a pioneering and qualified literary translator in contemporary Chinese socioculture. Under the guidance of the model newly formulated, it is a comparatively comprehensive and objective study of Xu Chi to shed light on both the achievements and defects of Xu Chi as a literary translator.In Conclusion, the major contribution of this dissertation is generalized to be the exploration of a tentative model for literary translator criticism, including:1) interpreting "translator-centeredness" to be a translator-oriented stance and expanding the scope of translational eco-environment;2) defining literary translator criticism as the analysis and evaluation of activities of literary translators and locating literary translator criticism as a sub-branch of literary translation criticism;3) exploring the principles, methods, contents and procedures of literary translator criticism; and4) conducting a case study of Xu Chi as a literary translator. Lastly, significance and limitations of this tentative research are stated and suggestions for future research are offered.更多还原