【作者】 冷惠玲；

【导师】 冯庆华；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 译者风格批评是一项尝试性的研究。译者风格批评的实践虽然自有翻译史以来就存在,但是,批评的内容不是轻描淡写,就是缺乏理据。古代的译者风格批评实践,主要是直观的感性评价,缺乏深入的分析;近现代的译者风格批评实践涉及译者风格的内容很少,即使有,往往也是以偏概全,主要是译作风格批评实践,大多呈现出“挑错儿”式的批评,而且常常由于言辞激烈而引发译者之间的论战,主要原因是译界对“批评”一词的反面理解。当代的译者风格批评实践,主要还是以译作风格批评为主,呈现出多元化、多层次的趋势,较之以往,批评者的理论理据意识更强、批评的手段更先进。译者风格的必然性研究上升到了理论的高度,译者主体性研究中对译者的主体地位给予了充分的尊重,然而,缺乏系统的真正意义上的译者风格批评。译者风格批评没有引起重视,没有形成统一的认识,批评也处于一种芜杂的状态。译者风格批评属于翻译批评的范畴。翻译批评问题在国内最早是由鲁迅先生提出来的。他从正反两个方面提出了批评的内容,初衷是提高翻译质量。但是,鲁迅先生对其内容的阐释还远远不够。随后董秋斯先生进一步丰富了鲁迅先生的翻译批评内容,并进一步提出了翻译批评的标准和重点。随后,焦菊隐先生提出了建立翻译批评体系的设想,并且首次将翻译本体以外的内容,诸如译者因素、语言差异、译作影响以及批评态度等等也纳入到翻译批评中。然而,可惜的是,这项工作没有再接着做下去。但是,鲁迅先生、董秋斯先生和焦菊隐先生在翻译批评领域的开创性贡献大大推动了翻译批评实践的发展。翻译批评理论体系在国内的逐步形成始于上个世纪的90年代初,国内相继出版了一系列建立翻译批评理论体系的著作,特别是2007年伊始,温秀颖的《翻译批评——从理论到实践》一书的推出更将翻译批评理论推向了成熟与完善。翻译批评理论体系的建立所走过的路程诠释了事物发展的客观规律,这一轨迹是任何事物发展的必经之路。翻译批评理论体系的建立,为译者风格批评理论体系的建构提供了理论基础和理论依据。回顾译者风格批评实践所走过的路程,以及近几年翻译主体性、主体间性以及与译者风格批评相关的学科理论的迅速发展、风格批评手段的先进化、科学化,使译者风格批评理论体系的建构也到了水到渠成的时机,译者风格批评实践需要上升到理论的高度、也需要理论的指导。因此,按照事物的发展规律,我们试搭建了一个译者风格批评的理论框架。本论文就是基于这样一种思路与动机设计的。主要内容如下:首先,通过回顾译者风格批评实践的历史,论证译者风格和译者风格批评实践事实的存在;其次,通过文献梳理,探究与译者风格批评相关的各理论、实践要素,确定并搭建译者风格批评理论框架的各大论域;最后,以翻译批评理论框架为本框架的构建模型,尝试建立了这样一个译者风格批评理论框架。本论文多次提到,探讨译者风格、构建译者风格批评理论框架,其目的并不是要夸大译者风格的地位和作用,也不是为译者的盲目游离原作风格开脱,而是,在译者风格及译者风格批评这一既成事实的前提下,通过构建这样一个理论框架,一,客观地评价译者在翻译过程中的主导作用;二,给予译者应有的地位和尊重;三,对译者风格的价值给予客观的评价;四,引导译者风格批评实践走向理论化、科学化;五,提高翻译质量。同时,也以此引起译者的注意,尽量将各种因素的干扰降至最低,遵循翻译的本质。本论文具体包括以下内容:第一章为绪论,介绍了本论文的研究背景、译者风格的理论必然性和实践存在事实、研究动机与目的、方法与步骤、范围与材料。第二章“译者风格批评的性质”,首先对译者风格批评体系的核心概念译者风格进行了界定,探讨了译者风格的特点、确定了本项研究的理论范畴和主要论域以及译者风格批评的功能,最后,指出了本项研究的理论意义和实践意义。第三章“译者风格的制约因素”是本论文的最大论域,包括五小节,分别是:译学意识形态与译者风格、译者的翻译思想与译者风格、翻译目的与译者风格、语言的制约与译者风格、译者的审美取向与译者风格。这五大内容是探讨译者风格产生的主客观原因。在“译学意识形态与译者风格”中,首先探讨了译学意识形态与意识形态的关系,以此明确译学意识形态的内涵以及与译者风格的关系,最后从理论和实践两个方面主要论证了译学意识形态中的主流文化认同和主流审美取向对译者风格的制约作用。本章的第二部分探讨的是译者的翻译思想与译者风格的关系。人的行动受制于思想,翻译活动也不例外,本节从理论上探讨了翻译思想与翻译策略、翻译方法的关系,以及翻译策略、翻译方法对译者风格的直接制约作用,最后以著名翻译家严复、傅雷、朱生豪、鲁迅为例,从实践上进一步论证了译者的翻译思想与译者风格的关系。翻译目的对译者风格也有非常大的制约作用。本节先是梳理了翻译目的论的代表性观点,又列举了翻译史上翻译目的左右翻译活动的实践事实,旨在从理论和实践上论证翻译目的对翻译活动的影响;然后,对翻译目的进行了分类,阐述译者参与了各种翻译目的,并在达成各种翻译目过程中所起的协调作用,最后从理论和实践两个方面探讨了翻译目的对译者风格的制约作用。语言的异质性是公认的对语言转换最大的障碍。本章的第四小节中,分析了译者风格与语言的关系、语言间的本质差异、译者化解差异的能力以及译者表现语言的能力,论证了语言的异质性对译者风格的制约作用。“译者的审美取向与译者风格”是本章探讨的最后一个制约译者风格的主要因素。人的审美属性使人的审美体验无处不在,然而,人的审美体验又各有差异。文学作品具有很高的审美价值,这种审美价值不仅表现在形式上也表现在内容上。不同的审美取向产生不同的审美结果,本节针对文学作品的两个关键属性——语言和文学的审美视角,从理论和实践上论证了译者的审美取向对其风格的影响。本章除了专节论证以上各大制约因素外,还在小结部分探讨了其他相关因素,如译者的创作风格、译者的年龄、性别以及原作风格对译者风格产生的制约作用。同时指出,这是一个开放性的论域。本论文的第四章探讨的是译者风格的认知,因为译者风格的认知是展开译者风格批评的基础。论文梳理了风格的传统和现代认知方法以及理论依据,从翻译实践中总结了有关翻译风格的传统和现代认知方法,并对其有效性进行了评价;另外,论文还列举了当代风格认知研究中有代表性的模式,目的都旨在为译者风格的认知提供借鉴,最后提出了译者风格认知的两种方法,单维认知法和多维认知法。这只是一个理论上的方法论,具体的操作步骤将是一个很大的论题,也极具挑战性,还有待进一步地探索与实现。第五章探讨的是译者风格批评的标准与方法问题。首先提出了译者风格批评的原则,即全面、客观、公正的原则,按照以上原则,制定了以下标准:译者风格对原作主题的表现力、译者风格的艺术感染力、译者风格对译语语言的贡献、译者风格对译语文学的贡献、译者风格对译语文化的影响,其中前四个标准评价的是译者风格的审美价值,最后一个标准评价的是译者风格的社会价值。本章建议译者风格批评采用审美解读法。方法的原则是:一,译者风格的本质特征;二,译者风格的意义;三,批评者客观、公正的态度;四,方法的科学性。译者风格具有审美的特征,译者风格批评应从译者风格的审美特性切入,深入地解读其价值意义。第六章是论文的结语部分。本部分对翻译史上各个时期的译者风格批评实践进行了简要的概述和评价,目的是提出构建译者风格批评理论框架的必要性,使译者风格批评理论化、科学化。同时,本章也列出了本研究的局限和发展空间。译者风格批评理论框架的构建,是一项尝试性的研究,列入框架内各项论域的合理性还有待译界同仁的认可,同时框架的进一步充实与完善还需进一步探讨,各论域中的具体内容的进一步论证还需理论发展的支持。万事开头难。以这篇小小的论文投石问路、抛砖引玉,希望它能看到一个光明的前景。更多还原

【Abstract】 It is a tentative study made of criticism of the translator’s style. Criticism of the translator’s style is nothing new, but something that has been practiced since the beginning of the translation history, yet the criticism is neither in-depth nor theoretically adequate. In the ancient times, criticism on the translator’s style was no more than an impression lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight; while in the modern times, the criticism mainly centered on the style of the translated text, especially on the typical mistakes picked out and criticized. The criticism was so hot that sometimes a tongue war was waged among the translators, the reason of which, now as we understand, is the negative use of the term“criticism”. The practice of criticism at present times also centers on the style of the translated text, with only an occasional mention of the translator’s style, or it is a combined one both on the style of the translated text and the translator’s style. What is different from before is that the present criticism turns to a wide range of newly advanced disciplines in linguistics or translation studies or such fields as literary criticism, psychology and aesthetics, etc. for its theoretical ground. The critics are more theoretically aware, and besides, the means applied is more scientific and sound than before. However, the criticism of the translator’s style should have its own special way of being dealt with, so it badly requires that a framework be formulated to provide principles and criteria for an objective evaluation. And finally, a guiding framework for the criticism of the translator’s style is all the more necessarily proposed in this dissertation.Criticism of the translator’s style is within the scope of translation criticism. Lu Xun was the first at home to propose translation criticism in the 1930s, when he simply suggested the criticism on the quality of translations from both positive and negative perspectives. Though he followed it up by giving further explanations in his later papers, yet his design left much room for improvement. Dong Qiusi later in 1950 not only added to the content but also suggested something new in terms of criticism criteria and criticism domains. Jiao Juyin, another Chinese noted translation theorist, later in the same year conceived an idea of formulating a framework for translation criticism, and for the first time, he included such factors as the translator, the heterogeneity of language, the influence of the translated work and the critic’s attitude in his framework. It is a pity that he did not follow it up. However, the three well-known translators and translation theorists’pioneering contributions to translation criticism prospered the practice of translation criticism ever since in China. The theoretical framework of translation criticism began to take shape in the early 1990s, when a series of works were published with appropriate categories and objective criteria formulated for translation criticism, especially the one Translation Criticism ---- from Theory to Practice by Wen Xiuying at the very beginning of the year 2007, which is the landmark in the translation criticism studies in China. It is noted that how the framework of translation criticism came into being found its expression in the natural law, which is applied to any advancement.The establishment of the framework of translation criticism serves as the theoretical basis for that of the framework of criticism of the translator’s style. In the past few years, the worldwide practice of criticism on the translator’s style, the studies of translation subjectivity and intersubjectivity, the advancement of other related disciplines, as well as the advanced and scientific means for conducting the criticism on style, all jointly is essential for a general framework that will accommodate the range of standards relevant to specific individual translation criticism of the translator’s style. It’s high time, it seems, for such a framework, the formulating of which is urgent both theoretically and practically. And that is what it is here before you a tentative one.This dissertation can be outlined briefly as follows: first, it is an overview of the actual practice of criticism on the translator’s style both at home and abroad drawing on the instances in the translation history, and it is then concluded that the criticism on the translator’s style has always been inadequate; second, modeled on the framework of translation criticism, the framework for the criticism of the translator’s style is proposed, which includes such categories as the nature of the translator’s style, the constraints on the translator’s style, the recognization of the translator’s style, the principles and criteria of the criticism of the translator’s style, and the methodology of the criticism of the translator’s style. Finally, it states that the research still leaves much room for improvement.It is repeated several times in this dissertation that the formulation of this framework does not mean to advocate the prominence of the translator’s style, nor to exaggerate the translator’s status and function in translating, nor to provide excuses for translators to go far beyond the original work, but by such a framework based on the fact of the inevitability of the translator’s style and the practice of the criticism on the translator’s style, it means to investigate the various constraints on the translator’s style and the value it brings to the target culture so as to give a sound evaluation of the translator’s decisive function for translating, to give the translator his deserved respect, to guide the criticism on the translator’s style on the way of a theoretical and scientific approach, and finally, to enhance the quality of translation. Meanwhile, translators may also take it as a reminder while translating to be aware of bringing all the interfering factors under control and reduce the loss to a minimum.Chapter One introduces the status quo, the inevitability of the translator’s style, and proposes the aim, method, scope and literature of this research.The term“the translator’s style”was first put forward by Zhi Liang in“The World Literature”in 1991. Then in 1992, Huang Yuanshen, in one of his publications, suggested that the translator should have his own style. However, Professor Feng Qinghua is the first one to give a comparatively profound study on this issue. Besides, the issue of the translator’s style is also talked about in the publications on the translator and the translation subjectivity. What is also worth mentioning is Zhao Wei and Sun Yingchun, who give an investigation of the unavoidability of the translator’s style from the perspective of socio- linguistics in terms of idiolect.The practice of criticism on the translator’s style can date back to as early as the Buddhist translation in China and the Bible translation in the West. In Zhi Qian’s The Preface to Chinese Version of Dharmapade he thought that Zhu Jiangyan’s translation was a combination of transliteration and sense-translation with plain expressions, while St. Jerome thought Symmachus gave the sense of the Scripture, not in literal language, as Aquila did. The traditional approach to criticism on the translator’s style is an impressionistic one lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight. It is not until the advancement of the modern linguistic approach since the 1960s that a more systematic, and less subjective, analysis of the translator’s style is made possible. However, the criticism lays emphasis on the adaptability of the translator’s style to the original one neglecting the aesthetic value of the translator’s style itself and its positive influence on the target language, literature and culture. Chapter Two“Nature of Criticism on the Translator’s Style”is the working framework including all the categories to be studied for this research, beginning with an investigation of the notion of the word“style”since the word“style”, whether in the west or in the east, has been used in a much confusing way. Then the notion of“the translator’s style”and that of“the style of the translated work”are further distinguished. It goes on to explore further the properties of the translator’s style, and the scope, the domains and the functions of criticism of the translator’s style and finally, it states the necessity of this research.The translator’s style is the translator’s linguistic habits which somehow betray him in all that he translates, while the style of the translated work is the linguistic characteristics of a particular translated text. The traditional view on translation in terms of style is that the translator must reproduce in the target language the original style, however, various models of translation process, the studies of the translation subjectivity, hermeneutics, reception theory and linguistics all show that while translating by interpreting the original style the translator must have something of his own style melted with the original one in the final work. It has also been found that different styles are revealed from different versions by different translators from the single original work, which is the translator’s style; while different styles are also revealed from different versions by the single translator from different original works by different authors, which are the different author’s different styles, however, these different styles also have something in common, which is the translator’s style.The translator’s style is a combination of the original style and the translator’s writing style, which is relatively consistent during a long period of time, with some changes at long intervals. The translator’s style is unique of himself.Criticism of the translator’s style is within the scope of translation criticism, the functions of which are to help construct the evaluating framework coordinating theories and practice, to provide an objective evaluation of the translator’s style and to guide different sides concerned such as the theorists, the critics, the translators and the readers, ect. to be beneficial from it.What the readers accept of the original work is actually the translated work by the translator, and what the readers are appealed to is actually the translator’s style instead of the original one. It is necessary to formulate such a framework not only to widen the scope of the translation studies but also to give an objective evaluation of the translator’s style.In Chapter Three“The Constraints on the Translator’s Style”, five constraints are proposed and examined as the major constraints on the translator’s style. They are the translational ideology, the translator’s translation principle, the translation purpose, heterogeneity of language, and the translator’s aesthetic bent. Besides, such minor constraints as the translator’s writing style, the translator’s age and the translator’s gender are also proposed and examined briefly.Translational ideology has something to do with ideology, which means the ideology within the translation circle. Three elements of translational ideology are discussed, which are the main constraints on the translator’s style, and they are the dominating cultural identity, aesthetic bent and literary trend.The translator’s translation principle determines the translation strategies, and hence the translation techniques which directly determine the translator’s style. Chinese well-known translators Yan Fu, Fu Lei, Zhu Shenghao and Lu Xun are cited as examples to demonstrate this relationship.The translation purpose has a big power on the translator’s style. Various representative views are examined and various purposes involved in translation are investigated to demonstrate the constraints of these on the translator’s style. Furthermore, the translation purposes are classified and the power of each on the translator’s style is further examined and testified. The investigation shows that the translator has to balance the purposes at each level and successfully handle them in his translation.The heterogeneity of language is generally acknowledged as the biggest hamper in language transfer. How language acts on the translator’s style is investigated through exploring the heterogeneity between the source language and the target language at different levels. Besides, the translator’s language competence in both languages is also closely connected with the translator’s style.The translator’s aesthetic bent as one of the constraints is also discussed in this chapter. It is found that the translator’s style has much to do with his aesthetic bent. Literary works can be called an art which is rich with the aesthetic value expressed both through the form and the content. The translator’s preferences in dealing with the form and the content lead to a special way of expressing.In addition to the above discussions, a small section of space is also left to the discussion of the constraint of the translator’s writing style, the translator’s age, the translator’s gender and the writer’s style on the translator in translating. Anyway, the discussion of the constraints on the translator’s style is open-ended.Chapter Four investigates the approaches of recognizing the translator’s style, which serves as the basis for criticism of the translator’s style. Traditional, modern and contemporary approaches and means applied in the recognization of style are investigated and evaluated. Representative models are cited. Finally, two methods for the recognization of the translator’s style are proposed, which are monolevel approach and multilevel approach. The reliability of these two methods is yet to be applied and testified.In Chapter Five, the criteria and methodology are proposed and discussed. Criticism on the translator’s style should be comprehensive, objective and just in considering the various constraints on the translator’s style. The criticism should be value-oriented, and the criteria are as follows: the capability of the translator’s style expressing the original theme, the appealing power of the translator’s style to the readers, the contributions the translator’s style makes to the target language and literature and the influence the translator’s style brings to the target culture. Aesthetic decoding is suggested as the evaluating method. Style is something aesthetic in literary criticism and decoding is an effective way of judging the value of the literary work. Only by decoding the details can it be found that how the text is composed, only by decoding the details can the translator’s linguistic habits be exposed and constraints on the translator’s style be discovered, and only by decoding the details of the influence can the contributions of the translation to the target language, literature and culture be evaluated, and as a result, a sound evaluation of the translator’s style can be at last made.Chapter Six rounds off the discussion by showing that it is a long history since criticism of the translator’s style has been practiced and that it is high time that a workable framework to guide the criticism be formulated. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that the framework is the first of this kind and a tentative one, so it needs improving with further investigation and observation. Moreover, the further advancement of the related disciplines will provide more proof for the theoretical basis of the reasoning, so this framework is open-ended. Finally, it is expected that more exercise be done to testify its feasibility.更多还原