劳伦斯·韦努蒂翻译理论研究.pdf

江苏科技大学 硕士学位论文 劳伦斯韦努蒂翻译理论研究 姓名：陶丽娟 申请学位级别：硕士 专业：外国语言学与应用语言学 指导教师：戴玉群 2011-05-31 摘要 iv 摘要摘要 翻译理论无论在西方还是在中国，大致都经历了三个发展阶段：传统的经典 阐释和语文学范式阶段，结构主义语言学范式阶段以及解构主义多元范式阶段。 本文的研究对象为第三个发展阶段即解构主义多元范式阶段， 尤其是文化转向之 后的翻译理论，旨在证实翻译活动实际上是一种不对称的权力交往行为，翻译也 从来不是在真空下进行的，翻译文本的生成受社会文化语境的制约。 本文选取了后殖民翻译理论的领军人物、美籍意大利学者劳伦斯韦努蒂作 为研究个案，综合运用社会学、伦理学等知识对其理论进行研究，以达到对整个 后殖民翻译理论的全面了解。 韦努蒂翻译理论的深层次问题在于翻译伦理 存 异伦理，即彰显和保护异域文化的差异性。而这一伦理也更倾向于要求异化作为 主要的翻译策略，以期实现其“存异”的目的。然而，由于文化差异的客观存在， 单纯的异化可能会导致目的语读者无法顺利地理解译文， 从而影响原语文本功能 的实现。从这个意义上来说，异化翻译并非万灵妙药，译者有时不得不通过归化 来照顾目的语读者的接受心理，以期顺利实现原语的文本功能。 全文共有五个部分。 第一章主要交代韦努蒂翻译理论的形成背景以及本文写 作的动机和意义。第二章首先介绍了翻译伦理的发展及回归的必要性，由此提出 韦努蒂翻译伦理的核心概念及文化身份的塑造， 最后明确提出韦努蒂所提倡的存 异伦理。由于其在实践方面的局限性，最终被修正为因地制宜伦理。第三章首先 回顾了归化翻译并对其进行批判， 继而引出异化翻译的概念并提出坚持异化翻译 的观点， 接着又从症候式阅读这一全新的视角阐述了异化翻译的特征并论证了其 合理性。最后，通过对红楼梦的两个英译本进行对比分析，进一步论证了翻 译活动要受到各种文本外因素影响的必然性。 第四章是对韦努蒂翻译理论的评价 性反思，主要包括其对翻译研究的贡献和局限性。最后一章总结全文：翻译必然 要受到文本外各种因素的影响。 全文详实、清楚地表现并阐释了韦努蒂翻译理论的基本框架。通过对其理论 的分析，社会文化因素影响翻译过程这一基本观点得到了充分的证实。 关键词：关键词：后殖民翻译理论；异化；归化；症候式阅读；存异伦理 abstract ii abstract in either china or the west, translation studies have generally undergone three paradigms: the paradigms of classic interpretation and philology, structuralism and deconstructionism. growing out of different social or historical backgrounds, they have different orientations, with emphasis laid on different issues. this thesis is set in the framework of “post-colonialism” theory, a strand of “cultural turn” against the deconstructionist context. it aims to justify that translating is a communication of asymmetrical power relations. thus, it is never done in the vacuum but is affected or even manipulated by extra-textual factors like power, ideology and so on. in order to have a panoramic view of the post-colonial studies of translation, the thesis，by comprehensively using the sociological and ethic knowledge, focuses on studying systematically the theory of lawrence venuti, a pioneering figure in this area. the decisive point of lawrence venutis translation theory is his translation ethics the ethics of difference which aims to signify and preserve the difference of language and culture in the st. due to its limitations in practice, it is later modified as ethics of location. thus, such a kind of ethics requires the foreignization strategy in order to demonstrate the “difference” of the source text. in fact, with the existence of cultural differences, foreignization alone may every now and then lead to a version which severely defies the comprehension of the tt reader, ultimately failing to implement the textual function of the st. in that sense, foreignization is by no means a panacea. in order to accommodate the tt readers reception so as to implement the textual function of the tt, the translator sometimes may have no choice but resort to domestication. the whole thesis contains five chapters. in chapter one, the author briefs on the general background of lawrence venutis translation background and states the motivations and significance of writing the thesis. in chapter two, after discussing the development of translation ethics and the necessity of studying it, the author then expounds the core concepts of venutis theory. meanwhile, the author presents venutis idea that translation can form the cultural identities, which supposedly abstract iii constitutes the potential source of scandal. naturally, such an analysis paves the way for his translation ethics the ethics of difference. however, the hypothesis of “ethics of difference” does not prove as applicable as it should have been, thus venuti deconstructs it both theoretically and practically. he later proposes the ethics of location, which can be a way to realizing the ethics of difference and ultimately the goal of demonstrating the difference in translation. then in chapter three, the author, first of all, introduces the historical development of domestication and criticizes it. then the author reviews the origin of the foreignization strategy and advocates adopting it in translating. furthermore, the author elaborates on another contribution of venuti, the symptomatic reading, which demonstrates the reasonability of the foreignization strategy from a new perspective. finally, the thesis, by using the examples from a dream of red mansions, illustrate the view that different translation ethics and strategies will produce different translations. chapter four is the reflections on venutis translation theory, including both the contributions and limitations. and in the last chapter, the author comes to the conclusion that translation is always influenced by various extra-textual factors. to sum up, a sketchy picture of venutis translation theory has been presented in this thesis, which justifies the involvement of social or cultural factors in translation and thus reflects the purpose of this thesis. key words: post-colonialism translation theory; foreignization; domestication; symptomatic reading; ethics of difference 江苏科技大学学位论文原创性声明江苏科技大学学位论文原创性声明 本人郑重声明：所呈交的学位论文，是本人在导师的指导下， 独立进行研究工作所取得的成果。除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本 论文不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的作品成果。 对本 文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。 本人完全意识到本声明的法律结果由本人承担。 学位论文作者签名： 年 月 日 江苏科技大学学位论文版权使用授权书江苏科技大学学位论文版权使用授权书 本学位论文作者完全了解学校有关保留、使用学位论文的规定， 同意学校保留并向国家有关部门或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版， 允许论文被查阅和借阅。 本人授权江苏科技大学可以将本学位论文的 全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，可以采用影印、缩印或扫 描等复制手段保存和汇编本学位论文。 本学位论文属于： (1)保密，在 年解密后适用本授权书。 (2)不保密。 学位论文作者签名： 指导教师签名： 年 月 日 年 月 日 i acknowledgements i am sincerely grateful to all those who have helped me with the thesis. first of all, i want to extend my thanks to my supervisor, mr dai yuqun, who has spent lots of time instructing me through the writing of this thesis. thanks to the many relevant books he introduced, i obtained a relatively broad vision, without which the theoretical framework of this thesis would not have been built. throughout the process of writing this thesis, he has offered lots of constructive suggestions on both the structure and every detail of the thesis. meanwhile, i want to thank other faculty members in the foreign language school whose lectures have largely aroused my interest on the subject, such as professor cheng shanzhen, ms ge jihong, ms zhang hongyan, ms zhao xia and mr zhou shujun. besides, my thanks also go to my classmates, whose precious suggestions have definitely benefited me during the whole span of my graduate study. finally, my special thanks go to my family, especially my parents, who have rendered me unselfish support both financially and spiritually. chapter one introduction 1 chapter one introduction in the 1990s, scholars began to study translation from outer-textual factors involving politics, culture and society instead of the text itself from the linguistic perspective. in 1990, andre lefevere and susan bassnett emphasized the relationship between translation, power and ideology. furthermore, they officially brought up the term “cultural turn” in the translation field. from then on, the translation field has opened up a brand-new landscape, engaging the cultural study in a much broader space. 1.1 the cultural turn of translation studies in the 1990s in 1959, roman jacobson published his book on linguistic aspects of translation. since then, the school of linguistics had played a dominant role in the translation field up until the 1970s. during the following decades, scholars such as catford, wilss, nida, newmark also put forth the views in their works which mainly studied translation from the angle of semeiology, verbal linguistics, applied linguistics and descriptive linguistics and intended to cope with translation problems by referring to the achievements in linguistic studies. in the 1970s, the israeli scholar even zohar proposed the theory of polysystem, which emphasized that translation activity should depend on the different systems of target culture, paying special attention to the target language (tl) and target culture but failing to liberate translation from the shackles of linguistics. however, it actually paved the way for the occurrence of “cultural turn” and could be viewed as its pretext. later, the descriptive studies represented by scholars such as toury and hermans developed the polysystem theory. though they noticed the influence on translation from the target culture, but the influence on target culture from translation was neglected. thus, their viewpoints were not so widely accepted in the translation field as to arouse tremendous response. in 1976, in the “literature and translation forum” held in louvain in belgium, the american scholar andre lefevere pointed out that “translation studies” should be seen as an independent discipline, which promised a trend called “cultural turn” in the research area. in 1980, the british scholar susan bassnet argued in her translation studies that master of arts thesis 2 translation should be thought about and evaluated from the field of culture, declaring the beginning of “cultural turn”. in 1990, in their book translation/history/culture, she and lefevere officially used the term “cultural turn”. and then they became the pioneers of those who studied translation from various outer-textual factors. their purpose of proposing the term was to study translation from the aspect of translators subjectivity and the target culture. the cultural turn scholars aimed at expounding cultural conflicts in translation activity, to some degree, dealing with the problem such as untranslatability and awakening the cultural awareness in translation. definitely, it widened the dimension of translation studies. according to the school of cultural studies, their translation viewpoints can be summarized as: first, culture has its restrictive function in translation activity; second, the position of translator and the target culture should be improved, which suggests that translation activity is never a low-level activity; third, culture, instead of words, phrases or discourse, is the translation unit. naturally, the translation field has opened up a brand-new landscape with the addition of these latest theories and translation has been discussed and studied in a much broader space. just as lefevere pointed out, “the effective way of studying translation is essentially from the angle of society and history. the key is not to seek the words correspondence, but to study the cause of this kind of correspondence, from what kind of political, economic, cultural and ideological consideration the translator wrought out this type of translation, and whether he or she has achieved his or her purpose”.(lefevere, 2004: 47) that means one should evaluate the process, product and function of a translation by studying the particular political, ideological, economic and cultural environment where it is produced. as a matter of fact, since the late 1980s, bassnett and lefeveres “cultural turn” in translation has come into being in translation studies, it has influenced translation studies from three areas: translation as rewriting, which is a development of systems theory, translation and gender, and translation and post-colonialism.(jeremy munday, 2010: 127) in this section, translation as rewriting and gender will be discussed, while translation and post-colonialism will be represented in detail in the following section chapter one introduction 3 for its decisive influence on translation. lefevere, a representative figure of rewriting theory, working originally from within systems theory, examines translation as rewriting and the ideological tensions around the text.(ibid.: 126) early in the 1980s, he proposed to study translation and all kinds of forms of “rewriting” together because the rewriting is proved to be an important strategy to regulate the target literary works by literary defender. translation is the rewriting of the st which all reflect certain ideas and poetics and control literature through certain ways in certain society.(cited in song bingchang, 2007(2): 297) so such a strategy plays the vital role in promoting the development of literary system. then in the 1990s, he began to study translation in a broader cultural background, emphasizing the historical consciousness and cultural viewpoint. for him, translation is inevitably controlled by translatorss or potentate ideology and poetics, thus it cannot reflect the real source text (st). he pointed out that translation was one form of rewriting and also a form for creating another text. translation is the most obviously recognizable type of rewriting, and . it is potentially the most influential because it is able to project the image of an author and / or those works beyond the boundaries of their culture of origin.(cited in jeremy munday, 2010: 128) the forms of rewriting, such as literary criticism, biography, history of literature, film and play, can recreate other forms. so rewriting is the continuity of the st, just as translation is the afterlife of text proposed by deconstructionists. then lefevere describes the literary system in which translation functions as being controlled by three main factors: professionals within the literary system, patronage outside the literary system and the dominant poetics. and he sees the dominant poetics as tending to be determined by ideology because on every level of the translation process, it can be shown that, if linguistic considerations enter into conflict with considerations of an ideological and /or poetological nature, the latter tend to win out.(ibid.: 130) here, the ideological refers to the translators ideology, or the ideology imposed upon the translator by patronage and the poetological consideration refers to the dominant poetics in the tl culture. thus, the interaction between poetics, ideology and translation is clearly demonstrated. and in lefeveres master of arts thesis 4 eyes, such rewriting, before and during translation, is down to ideological pressures. his opinion of rewriting and the ideological tensions around the text proves a new way for studying translation. in the 1970s, the western translation studies turned from the paradigm of language to that of culture, which was expanded to the fields such as society, politics and ideology. together with rewriting, feminism came into being in the 1990s in euramerica. then scholars began to study the complexity of translation from the angle of feminism. feminism translation theory describes a whole frame of feminism translation theory, the objects of which are female translators and feminism translators. this theory recognizes and criticizes the opinion of depreciating female and translation, meanwhile, it points out that the translation is not faithful to the writer or the reader but to the rewriting project. that is to say, if the translation belongs to the feminism project, then the feminist will rewrite, control and even betray the st.(chen lin, 2004(2): 68) the important topic of feminism is to signal the sexual difference. traditionally, the relationship between st and its target text (tt) is seen as that between the male and the female. in accordance with the bible, god first creates the male and then the female by using the ribs of the male. thus, for thousands of years, the female have been subordinate to the male. just as the female is the property of the man, the translator is the “maid” of the writer.(zhang jinghua, 2004(4):20) and the translation of a text is also subordinate to st. furthermore, the translation of a text is compared as “the unfaithful beauty” which is seen as the incomplete or derivative copy or the substitute of the st. that is to say, the translation of a text is secondary to the text and can never take the same position. thus, the feminist theorists see a parallel between the status of translation, which is often considered to be derivative and inferior to original writing, and that of women, so often repressed in literature and society. this is the core of feminist translation theory, which seeks to identify and critique the tangle of concepts which relegates both women and translation to the bottom of the social and literary ladder.(cited in jeremy munday, 2010: 131) due to that analogy, chapter one introduction 5 feminism translation studies implies that the female translators awareness of subjectivity has been awakened and they hope to express their feelings as an independent subjectivity. it adds another new dimension to translation studies. from the introduction above, it is obviously for one to find that the school of cultural studies pays special attention to the relationship between culture and translation, that is, culture plays an important role in translation and in return, it is influenced by translation. definitely, the translation activity is not just the operation of language or a pure academic activity, but always closely related to cultural, political and social conditions.(lv jun rethinking translation: discourse, subjectivity, ideology in 1992, the translation studies reader published in 2000. among them, the first two have been receiving the widespread responses from scholars in each corner of the world. as for his papers, the following ones are most frequently quoted: unequal developments: current trends in translation studies, 1997; translation, community, utopia, 2000; translating derrida on translation: relevance and disciplinary resistance, 2003. from his books and papers, one can reach a safe conclusion that venutis theoretical contribution to translation field can be mainly discussed in two aspects: first, translation ethics; second, translation strategy: domestication and foreignization. for the former, venuti proposes the ethics of difference. it can be described as an ethical principle which maintains the independence and foreignness of foreign language and culture in the tl, aiming to alter the reproduction of dominant domestic ideologies and institutions that provide a partial and subjective representation of source c