Cross--cultural Transfer inTranslation.txt

1: 1=0 2 5:4 1 : ! ) .:,. ;- . :j ; ; z . .j - :11 : s.nhaim.p itimeunivers iiy- . . b _ masr,.r d-isle rt.1io n - jr . _ sr h - . . . l : ._r . - . - : r l : 涨: ; 涨 :.7ijcrosseulturaltransefrintranslation crossculturaltransfer intranslation l1um1ngzhu shanghaimaritimeuniversity june2004aeknowledgemenst thethesisatferaboutoneyear5eoffrtshasnalybeeneompeted.1have beenblessedovertheyearswithbeingabletostudyandworkwithanumber ofinspiringfriendseolleaguesandteaehersinanhuiandshanghajwi!1not namenamesofrfearthat1mightinadvertentlyleavesomeoneout.but. perhaps1allthemoretreasurethefriendshipandsupportthatallthesefriends eolleaguesandteaehershaveshownme. imustthankmysupevrisomr.hanzhonghuaofraveyrinsighulandheipufl reviewofanearlierdratfofthisthesis.mr.hanhasinonewayoranother arousedmyinteerstinerosseulturaltransefr. 1oweadeepdebttomyhusbandwilliamluwhooeffredahelpinghandboth athouseworkandatthisthesis.itshallneverbeofrgottenthatheatferadays hadrworkspenthoursdiseussingwithmeanyideasthat!hituponaboutthjs thesis. 1owemybabybaiyanluan18monthboynowwhoprovedtobea eooperativesonas1wasworkingonthisthesis1havetheieastdoubtthathe willofiowinghisparentsbedestinedtodevelopaninteerstinbooksashe growsup.1lovehim50mueh. susanliu 桢 :黯 ? 壬 :; ; : :黯 黯 ;黯 ;黯 巽: 巭 :黯abstract languagetheloadingobieetofeultuer15ofreommunieation. translingualeommunieation15notonlylanguagetransmittingbuteultural transefr.duringthepastfewyearsinereasingimportaneehasbeenlaidon eulturalafetorsintranslationandit15noweustomayrthatseholarstendto studytranslationfromtheeulturalperspeetiveespeeiallyfromthe erosscuturalperspeetive . howevertheeulturaldivergeneehasposedsomediffieultiesofr translation.theeonflietbewteendieffrenteulturaleoneeptsandeultural baekgroundsmayhamperorevendiseontinueeommunieation. 0translationstrategieshavearousedtheseholarsinterestsinthe eorssculturaltarnsefrinthetranslationeldnameydomestieationand ofreignization.whethertoadoptdomesticationkeepingreadabilityand eradersaeeeptaneeinmind.ortoadoptoferignizationretajningtheeultural aspeetsins15thematterinquestion. thethesiseonsistsofofurehapters. chapterone15anovevriewabouttarnslationstudjes.theauthorfirstofall reefrstovariousdefinitionsoftranslationinaneoffrttoimpressthereadersthe esseneeoftranslation.thenbyreeallingthetraditionaltranslationtheoriesthe authoranalyzesthedeficienciesoftraditionalperscriptivetranslationstudies andbringsintoviewthenewtrendintranslationstudies:translationstudies15 undegrojngitseulturalturn. chapter1.0introdueesseveralkeyissuesofculturesuehasdefinitions ande!assieations.thediscrepaneiesbewteenenglisheultureandchinese eu!tureteratedwithspeeialattentionareexemplifiedinsuehaspectsas anguagemodeofthinkingaesthetiepreefreneeethiealtraditionproverbs andaiusionsanddiaects. chapterthree15devotedtothegistofthisthesis:domestieationand ofreignization.withsufficientexamplesprovidedsuchaspectsaretackledaskeyviewsdeeisivefaetorsandpraetiealapproaehes;andabovea!ithetwo strategiesareanalyzedwithintertextuaitytheoyr. chapterfourdiseussesspeeifiealythetranslationofmetaphor.by providingthefivemosteommonproeeduresofrmetaphortranslationthe authordeeidesthespeeifieoeeasionsfordomestieationandofreignization translationstrategies. it15hopedthatthisthesisshedssomenewiightofrthereadersfurther eomperhensionofthetwotranslationstrategiesinerosseutural eommunieation;andaflexibleattitude15suggestedtothetranslatorsin crosscu!turatransef.r keywords:translationeulturaltransefrdomestieationofreignization metaphorhbleofcontents introduetion chapteronetarnsaltino:naovevreiw . . . . . 3 definitionsoftrans1ation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2traditionaltranslat1ontheories. . 5 . 3ulutarlttlmintranslation.8 summayr.11 chapetrlwoculuter:sveeralkyesiuses.12 2.1definitionsofculuter.12 2.2classificationsofcu1ture.14 .22.1ecology. . . 14 2.2.2materialcunure.16 2.2.3socialcutlure16 .2.24religoiuscutlure17 .2.25lingusiticcuhuer . . 18 2.3aspeetsofdivergenees:englishculturenadchineseculture.19 .23.1lnaguage.20 phonetics.20 .23.1.2menaing. . . . . . 21 .23.1.3syntax22 .23.2modeofthikning.22 2.3.3aestheticpreefrence23 2.3.4ethicaltradtiion.25 2.3.5proverbswhile domestieationmkaesadpaattionsofthesltosuitthetlredaers.thougheither oferingizationordomestieationenasevretodealthhtesmaeetxtheteeffetsachieved aeruettrlydiflrent.foerizationertainsinthetnarslation50mnayalienacftosrhtatit eonsnattiyremindshtetleradershtathteyarereadinganalientextnaddomestieation howevereausesthetlreaderstoeeasethinkingofthewritingsasofreign. sodieffrentandindispensablearethetwostrategiesthatseholarshavenevereeased arguingaboutthem.asamatterofafetthecontroversyoverthemhasalreadylasted centurieslong. thedomestieationadvoeatorsevaluatethetwostrategiesrfomtheperspeetiveofthe tlredaers.theyholdingreadabilityandthereadersacceptaneeasthespuremestnadard preefrflueneyofthetrnaslationnadovertlyvafortranslationwithnativetaste.forthose advoeatorsofreaderorientedtranslationdomestieationseemstheonlyehoieeofrit15the onlysuitablewaytorenderiteasyofrthetlreadertoappreciatethetarnslatedversion. aeeordingtothetheoyrofufnetionalequivaleneedomestieationcnaprodueethesmae eeffetinthetlreadersastheoriginalworkdoesinslreadersanidealheldbysome trnaslationtheorists.furtherinvestigationrevealsthateonseiouslyorsubeonseiouslythe domestieationproponentsarejustimplementinganationaleulutreproteetionismor nationalcultureeentralism.takingtheunderstandabilityoftheworkstothetlredaers asanexeusetheywipeoutwhatmightpollutetheirowneulutre.crosseulturaltransefrintransatio1 despitetheopposingpowersrfomtheprodomestieationtranslatorsandtranslation theoristsofreignization15eommentedinnumerousrespeets.ingeneraltheirmajoreall15: 1.tcneedsalienthingstoenriehandefrtilizeits5011nad2.tlneedstobediversifiedby absorbingofreignelements.simpleasit15theeall15prettypapealing. aimingatdiselosingthediserepanciesbetweentheslcultureandtleulture ofreigniaztionpaystheduerespeettotheoriginalwork5artistieereationandeultural ineamation.onething15ofreertainthatofreignizationplaysapositiveroleinacountrys lingualnadeulturalperefetion.inthetranslationpraetieesallthroughchineseand westernhistoryofreignizationprovestobeaneeffetivewayofdisplayingthesplendid efaturesofaeulturenarrowingdowntheeulturalgapsandpromotingtheworldwide eulturation. mnaygermanreadersmyanotowthattheirmothertonguehasbeenofrmedover eenturiesbyabsorbingandevendireetlyborrowinglatin.it15alsotrueofchinese lnaguage.eontemporaryehineseappearedintheearlyzotheenutry.ouringtheyearsof revolutionnadinnovationofreignizationwaswidelyemployedinthefieldoftrnaslation ofrtheelassiealchinesewasthoughttobeinaecuratenadindaequatetoexpress eomplieatedmenaings. admittedlyinthedebatesoverdomestieationandofreignizationtwostrategiesin eorsscultuarltransefrdomestieatingtarnslationoneeprevailed.formostpartofthe worldrtnaslationtheoyrdomestieationhasbeenpapreeiatedandexertedintrnaslation praetieeswhileofreignizationbeeneritieizednadrepulsed.howeverastimegoesonthe advnatagesoftheofrmerdiminishgraduallyasofreignization15gainingmoreandmore understandingnadsupports.it15theopinionofsomechineseseholarsthatdomestication si(1987)orthat (1991). despitethevariousopinionsthethesismakesatentativenaalysisofthetwostrategies inthecrosseulturaltrnasefrandtriestoimpresstheeraderswiththemeritsanddemerits ofthebothstrategies.crosseulturaltransefrintranslation chapteronetranslation:anoverview god15saidtohavemadevariouslanguagesintheworldineasemanshouldbuildthe babelathleattohissupremepower.ridieulousasthelegendsoundsnumerous lnaguagesdoexistinthisworldwhiehhinderscrosseulturaleommunieationinoneway oranotherheneetheneeessityoftranslation.thereofrethehistoryoftrnaslationeanbe asmankindold. thenwhat15trslation? 1.1definitionsoftranslation foraslongaspeoplehavecommunieatedwithoneanotherthroughthemediators theerhasporbablybeenaeralizationthatmediatorsdosomehtingmoreeomplexnadmore inteerstingthnasimplysubstitutetheirownwordsonebyoneofrtheoriginals. catofrd(1965)definestrnaslationasthereplaeementoftextualmaterialinone lnaguage(sl)byequivalenttextualmaterialinanotherlnaguage(tl)(catofrdeitedin snellhomby1996:15).bythisdefinitionheevidentlyseeksofrthetranslationof textualmaterialthatofthelanguageitsel.finotherwodrstnarslation15lingualtransef.r innidaandtaber:trnaslationeonsistsinreprodueinginthereeeptorlanguagethe elosestnaturalequivalentofthesoureelnaguagemessagefirstintemrsofmenaingnad seeondlyintemrsofstyleida (2)thestyleandmnnaerofwritingshouldbeofthesmaeeharaeterwiththatofthe original; (3)thetrnaslationshouldhavealltheeaseoforiginalcomp0sition (tloreitedinbassnette1980:63) inchinathemostinfluentialtranslationtheory15noneotherthannfu5threecrosseulturaltransefrintranslation eriteriaoftranslation:afithuflnessepxerssivenessandeleganceindaa.many translatorsandtranslationtheoristsdebateoniteventoday.moreeriteriawereadvanced ater.forinstaneefuleiafvoredsimilarityinspirit()andqianzhongshuadvocated sublimation.(). apparentlytytler5threeprineiplesaremuehsimilartoyanfu5threeeriteria xindayawhiehprovesthatthereindeedexistintranslationsuehthreeaspeetsthe translatorseouldnothelpbuttoeonrfont. uptothezoteenturythetranslationresearehersvisionwasbroadenedbythegreat aehievementsmadeinlinguisties.espeeiallyinthewsttrnaslationtheoristssetupto introdueetheoriesoniinguistiesintothefieldoftranslationstudies.translationstudies previouslyeomparativeanalysesofthesuracfeexpressionhvaeturnedtoexplainthe innerlogicalrelationsoflanguage.furthermoretkaingredaersresponseinto eonsiderationtranslationtheoristsassertedthattranslationstudiesshouldcoverhteauhto rhertansalotrandrheerade:translationstudiesweerthusvemuehdeepened. amongallthetrnaslationtheoristsinthesteugenenidaandpeternemwarkare themostnoteworthyinthefieldoflinguistietnarslationstudies. inthebookthetheoyrandpraeticeoftransaltion(1969)nidaemploying chomsky5theorytrnasofrmationalgrammarputsofrwardhisafmoustrnaslation theories:ofmralequivalenttarnslationanddynamieequivalenttrnaslation.theofrmer basieallysoureeorientedattemptst:eprodueeasmuehaspossiblethemrnadthe eontentoftheoriginalmessage:byeontrastthelatter15hrtoughreprodueingtheelosest natuarlequivalenttothesoureelanguagemessagedirectstowardsthereceptors/readers response.nidaadvoeatesdynamieequivalenttranslationtheeoreofhistranslationtheory. it15nida5opinionthattrnaslation15eommunicationwhiehdependsonwhatpeopleget whentheylistentospeaknadredathetranslationversions.it15towhatdegreethatthe reeipientsunderstandandpapreeiatethettthatmattersbutnottheeorrespondent semnatiemenainggrammatiealtypeandtherhetoriealdeviees.sineetranslation15 communicationit15ineompletetonaalyzeanythingbutreadersresponse.what5the mostremarkableaboutnida15thathehasputofrwardaneweriteriontojudgenadcrosseulturaltransefrintranslation evaluatetranslationi.e.toeomparetheresponsesofthereeeptorsinboththeslandtlto seeiftheyareequivalenttothegreatestdegree. peternewmarkthesecondmostnoteworthypersoninthefieldoflinguistie translationstudies15aafousbritishtranslationtheoristnadlinguist.aofllowerof buhler5ufnetionaltheoryoflanguagepeternewmarkbymeansofstylisticsandtexutal naalysisinpporachestotranslation(1981)elassifiesthetexttpyesintothreeeategories: theexpressivetheinofmrativenadthevoeativenadthenputsofrwardhissexnantieand eommunieativetranslationtheorywiththeofrmerofcusingonthemeaningandtheofrm whilethelatterontheeeffet.onething15clearthatliteraltrnaslationorrfeetrnaslation15 notexeludedinnevlnark5semantieandeommunicativetranslation.rathernewmark holdingastrongafvorofrliteraltranslationalwaysadvoeatesafithuflnessnotonlyto readersbuttotheauthorandthest. fuhrterinvestigationsdiselosebutoneafetthatrtaditionaltrnaslationtheoriesare mostlypreseriptivestudies:suehissuesarerfequentlytackledashtenatuerofrtanslation rtansaltionprineelstarnsaltionporcessrtansaltionmehtodsect.inotherwodrsthey tendtoofeusonhowtranslatorsshouldtranslateratherthanhowtranslatorsdotransate nadwtrnaslatorstkaeeertaintrnaslationstrategieshencehtedisputesoverissuesof lietralrtanslationvs.erfetranslationofrmvs.meaningsciencevs.aretc.numerous 50ealleduniversalnormsorurleshvaeerfquentlybeensetupofrtranslatorstoabideby ofrit15believedthattranslationnormsareintersubjeetiveafetorsinflueneingandtoa largeextentevendeterminingtheehoieeoftnarslationsolutions(touyrguojinazhong (ed.)2000:159)butnonethusarf15agreedbyall. theproblem15:mnaytheoriesthoughmarkedwiththeauthorspersonalnationalnad timeboundingvaluesystemsaresupposedtobeuniversalrulesofrtranslationsof dieffrenttexttypesatdieffrenttimes.forexampleinthetheoyrandpracticeof translationnidaandtaberproposeasetofprioritiesintranslation: (l)coniexutalconsisteneyhaspriorityoververbaleonsistency(orwordofrword eoncordnaee); (2)dynamieequivaleneehasprioriytoverofmralequivalenee;crosseulturaltransrintranslation (3)theaural(heard)ofrmoflanguagehaspriorityoverthewrittenofrm; (4)formsthatareusedbyandaeeeptabletotheaudienceofrwhichatranslation15 intendedhavepriorityoverofrmthatmaybetraditionallymoreprestigious. ida (2)trnaslation15viewednotasaproeessoftrnascodingbutasnaactofcommunication: (3)thetheoriesareallorientedtowardstheufnctionofthett(prospeetivetranslation) :atherthanpreseriptionsofthest(retrospeetivetranslation); (4)thetext15viewedasnaintegralpartoftheworldandnotasnaisolatedspeeimen !0crosseulturaltrnasefrintranslation .summary asameansoftranslingualeommunieationtrnaslation15notonlyaproeessoflanguage trnasmittingbutalsoaproeessofeulturaltransplantingandspreading.despitevarious definitionsandtheoriesmnaytheoristsnowagreethattranslationinvolvesatleasttwo essentials:languageandeultureandunlikethetraditionalprescriptivetranslationtheories aeulturaltheoryoftranslation15expeetedtobedeseriptivehistoriealnadsoeiocultural. translation15undergoingitsculturalturn. llcrossculturaltlansefrintrans!ation chaptertwoculture:severalkeyissues srtangeasitmaysoundtotheuninitiatedthere15nothingtoopevrerseinclaiming thatatextaswellasitstranslationaredeterminedfirstandofremostbyconsiderations originatinginhteeulturewhiehhostthem.nidarightlypointsout:inafetdiffieulties arisingoutofdieffreneesofcultureeonstitutethemostseriousproblemsofrtranslators nadhaveprodueedthemostafrreaehingmisunderstandingsamongreaders.ida 1981:2)culturalmenaingsareintrieatelywovenintothetextureofthelanguage.the ereativewriter5abilitytoeaptureandprojeetthem15ofprimaryimportanee.caught betweentheneedtoepaturetheloealeolorandtheneedtobeunderstoodbyanuadienee outsidetheeulturalnadlingualsituationatnarslaotrhastobeathomewithtwoeultures. oneofhetmaingoalsoftrnaslation15toinitiatethetlreaderintothesensibilitiesofthe sleulture.theproeessoftransmittingeulturalelementsthroughtranslationisa eomplieatedandvitaltask. butfirstofallwhat15eulture? 2.1definitionsofculture culturealargenadevasiveeoneept15hardtodefinepreeisely.variousexplanations havebeengiveninnaeoffrttodeseribewhateulture15butnone15satisyfingbyall. theeoneeptwasfirstdavaneedbynaenglishculturalnahrtopologistbythenmaeof edgartaylorwhoinhisbookprimitivecultuerspublishedin1871definedeultureas thateomplexwholewhiehineludesknowledgebeliefartlawmoralscustomsnadnay othercpabailitiesnadhabitsaequiredbymnaasamemberofsoeiety(ylorquotedin boek1979:1314). aeontemporaryexplnaationoeffredbyedwardsapir(1921)15culutremaybe definedaswhatasoeietydoesnadthinks.language15apartieularhowofthought. (quotedinhuwenzhong1988:4)thismaniefstslanguage15notnaisolatedphenomenon suspendedinavaeuumbutasanintegralpartofeulture:i.e.culture15awidersystemthat in