北京中医药将多元化发展.doc

汉语虚词“了”的研究及翻译策略中文本文从历时角度，以近期翻译发展状况为背景, 用奈达(Nida)和希金斯(Higgins)的相关理论作为支撑，以傲慢与偏见及其六种中译本为文本，对虚词“了”(le)的翻译进行对比研究。 “了”(le)作为虚词，分“了-1”(le-1)、“了-2” (le-2) 两种。两种“了”字，各不相同，在论述上本文采取先分项论述再归纳总结的方式，参照傲慢与偏见六种中文译本，作了详尽认真地阐述及译文对比研究。对于“了-1” (le-1) 的论述，本文先从一般情况着手，说明作为体标记的动词后缀“了-1” (le-1)在英译汉的过程中，既被作为完成体的对应词又被作为过去时的对应词。这种对应方式既体现了两种语言的特点，又有译者出于对语义焦点的考虑。 “了-1” (le-1) 在译本中的特点，更多地体现在带“了” (le)字的固定句型上，所以作者在第二步从这些特殊句型入手，发现针对同一原文，会同时出现“V(Verb)+DV(Directional Verb)+ le-1 (了-1)” 和“V(Verb)+ le-1 (了-1)+DV(Directional Verb)”两种译文的情况，两种译文孰优孰劣，这两种句型是否又存在差别，这正是本文关心之处。经过理论推理和实例论证，作者认为“了-1” (le-1) 位置的不同决定了信息焦点的不同。这一结论廓清了人们长期对这一问题的争论，同时又证明了在这两个句型中，“了-1” (le-1)为动相补语的可能。对于译者，只有明白了二者之间的差异才能更好地服务于翻译。句型“V+DV+ le-1 (了-1)+O(Object)”和“V+DV+O”是“了-1” (le-1) 的又一特殊之处，它们同样出现在了同一句英文的翻译中。对此本论文认为这并非偶然的巧合，而应有其内在规律。作者运用冯胜利“汉语韵律句法学”和利波曼(Liberman) 有关英语“重音及语言节奏”(stress and linguistic rhythm)的论述，指出“了-1” (le-1) 在此系“衬音词”，而译者对于“V+DV+ le-1 (了-1)+O”代替“V+DV+O”的选择是出于“韵律等值”的考虑。文章对于“衬音词”(shenyinci)概念的提出，具有很大的挑战性。“衬音词”(chenyinci)现象的存在是证明翻译可以在韵律上等值的前提。为了进一步论证汉语中确实有“衬音词”（chenyinci）的现象，本文又从理论上做了探讨，并引入了“语法化”的概念。“语法化”的概念既是对于之前“了-1” (le-1) 的历时整合，又是对于“了-1” (le-1)作为“衬音词（chenyinci）”的肯定，更是对于将要论述的“了-2” (le-2) 的一次辨析。 “了-2” (le-2) 和“了-1” (le-1)从“语法化”的角度看，二者既有关联又并非同源。而“了-2”(le-2)在翻译中的意义，更多地在于其与英语情态动词的对应互译。通过具体的实证分析，发现“了-2” (le-2)更多地担负起英语情态动词的语气功能。英语中许多不同的情态动词，其语气在翻译中都由它来实现；而对此汉语词典上并没有做出相应的解释。作者依据所掌握的材料从理论和实证上对“了-2”(le-2) 具有情态语气功能进行了合理地论证。结论部分对所述论证做了梳理和补充，并从方法论的角度对所述部分做了另一角度的总结。考虑到文章的生涩和不足，为了将来更好地研究，本文在最后对所做研究进行了展望。译文On the basis of the recent translation studies and the support of Nidas and Higgins relevant theories, le (了) is adopted as the case to study functional words in this paper. All the study is made on the text of Pride and Prejudice. Le (了), as a functional word, can be divided into le-1 (了-1) and le-2 (了-2). For the differences between them, according to the translations in six versions, the paper firstly makes a separate demonstration and then draws some conclusions on the whole. As for the illustration of le-1 (了-1), the study starts from its general character and has found that the past tense and the perfect in English can both be rendered into le-1 (了-1), though le-1 (了-1) is a perfect marker in Chinese. Such a manipulation of the verbal suffix, on the one hand, is required by the different languages and on the other, is the result of dealing with the semantic focus by the translator. After the study on the generality of le-1 (了-1), the illustration comes to its concrete patterns. The analysis of the translations indicates that for a same original sentence, two patterns “V+DV+ le-1 (了-1)” and “V+ le-1 (了-1)+DV” both appear in their corresponding translations. As a matter of fact, only one translation is appropriate according to the concrete context. As a result, finding out the nuance between them is the focus in this thesis. After a hard theoretical inference and a empirical analysis, the thesis concludes that the positions of le-1 (了-1) determine the different semantic focuses in the two patterns, which makes the lasting controversy. Meanwhile, the paper verifies that le-1 (了-1) is a phase complement in the two patterns for the first time. This special aspect is also reflected in the patterns of “V+DV+ le-1 (了-1)+O” and “V+DV+O”. Aiming at the co-existence in the same translations, the author convinced that this is not coincident and an inherent regulation should be found out. With the aid of “Chinese Prosody Syntax” by Feng Sheng-li and “the stress and linguistic rhythm” by Liberman, the paper defines le-1 (了-1) as a chenyinci (衬音词) and the choice of “V+DV+ le-1 (了-1)+O” to replace “V+DV+O” by the translators results from the consideration of the “prosodic equivalence”. The proposal of the concept chenyinci (衬音词) is obviously a great challenge, for the existence of chenyinci (衬音词) is the premise of prosodic equivalence in translation and there is no clear definition for it in Chinese grammar. To deepen its rationality, the concept of “grammaticalization” is introduced, which can be used to articulate the development of le-1 (了-1) diachronically and also to posit chenyinci (衬音词) in its development. Furthermore, such a concept can also clean up the source of le-2 (了-2). From the perspective of “grammaticalization”, le-1 (了-1) and le-2 (了-2) are somewhat related but do not have the same source. With regard to the translation of le-2 (了-2), it is found that many modal verbs in English have been rendered into it; that is, it is the corresponding word in Chinese for these modal verbs. Such a modality function on le-2 (了-2) is ignored in many Chinese dictionaries, for which the paper gives a sound illustration. In the conclusion, the process