称呼语论文文学作品中的称呼语与翻译比较.doc

称呼语论文：文学作品中的称呼语与翻译比较【中文摘要】文学作品反映文化。文学作品的翻译是沟通目标语读者和源语言文化的桥梁。称呼语作为文化载体反映着人际关系和社会文化。本文尝试以红楼梦的前八十回为例比较研究英汉称呼语。汉语版本是由人民文学出版社2005年出版的,英语版本选了两个最有影响力的：一个是由杨宪益和戴乃迭夫妇合译的,另一个的前80回是由霍克斯翻译的。本文力求通过比较发现不同的翻译方法和翻译策略对译文的影响,同时探讨中西称呼语文化内涵的差别,并为其翻译过程中的文化流失寻找有效的补偿办法。红楼梦这部小说涉及数百人物,其间错综复杂的关系形成的各种称谓形象而微妙地表现了我国封建社会的种种传统称谓。红楼梦称呼语的复杂性和汉英两种文化的差异使称呼语的翻译过程障碍重重。本文以两种翻译方法直译和意译,和两种翻译策略归化和异化为理论基础,讨论了三种类型的称呼语：亲属称谓,拟亲属称谓和名字。本文还从文化背景、主体意识形态和家庭结构等方面解释了导致称呼语系统差异的原因。不同文化、不同语言在称呼语方面有一些重合部分,这使翻译具备了可能性。然而称呼语方面的差异仍存在的。翻译在展现奇异性的同时也导致了文化流失,部分地是由汉字偏旁、双关和暗指以及姓名禁忌等的不可译性引起。尽管存在不可译性,译者仍有责任尽力补偿翻译中的文化流失。本文以红楼梦为例为称呼语翻译中的文化流失现象提供了几种处理方法：给亲属称谓和拟亲属称谓加注,对于名字则采取音译加解释的方法。本文的结论是,杨译本在称呼语翻译中主要采取直译和异化,更忠实于源语言文本；霍译本主要采取意译和归化,使目标语读者更容易理解目标语文本。另外,尽管存在不同程度的不可译性,但为了更好地传播源语言文化,译者应该下大工夫、采取积极措施来弥补文化流失。【英文摘要】Literary works represent culture. Translation of literary works serves as a bridge linking target readers and the source-language culture. Address forms, as cultural carriers, mirror interpersonal relationships and social culture. This thesis attempts to make a comparative study of address forms in Chinese and English with examples selected from the first eighty chapters of Hong Lou Meng and its two most influential English versions:one is A Dream of Red Mansions by Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang and the other The Story of the Stone by David Hawkes. Through the comparative study, this thesis also tries to discover the effects of different translation methods and strategies on translation, explore differences in the Chinese and the Western address cultures, and discover effective means to compensate for cultural gaps in translation.Hong Lou Meng, being vivid and subtle representation of traditional address forms in feudal Chinese society, involves hundreds of characters, intricate relationships among whom lead to a variety of address forms. The complexity of address forms in Hong Lou Meng and differences between the two cultures set up a considerable barrier to translation. With two translation methodsliteral translation and free translation and two translation strategiesdomestication and foreignization as the theoretical backgrounds, the thesis discusses address forms in three categories:kinship terms, fictive kinship terms and names. Several factors are discussed accounting for differences in address cultures from the perspective of cultural backgrounds, dominant ideology and family structure.Despite the fact that people speaking different languages and with different cultural backgrounds share some overlapping constituents in address forms, which promises translatability, considerable differences also exist. Translation presents some strangeness and may result in some cultural gaps, partly owing to untranslatability in radicals (偏旁) of Chinese characters, in puns and allusions, and in “Zi” (字), “Hao” (号), and name taboo. Facing cultural default, translators undertake the duty to try every means to find ways of compensation. Approaches are offered to deal with the address forms in Hong Lou Meng and compensate for cultural default caused by huge differences between the two address systems:annotations for kinship terms, annotations for fictive kinship terms, and transliteration with explanation for names.The conclusion is drawn that the Yangs version mainly takes literal translation and foreignization in the translation of address forms, appearing to be more faithful to the source text; Hawkesversion mainly takes free translation and domestication, which produces a target text more intelligible to the target reader. Besides, for the purpose of better spreading the source-language culture, the translator has to take pains and take active measures to compensate for cultural default despite degrees of untranslatability.【关键词】称呼语 文化不可译性 补偿【英文关键词】address forms cultural untranslatability compensation【目录】文学作品中的称呼语与翻译比较Abstract9-10摘要11-12Introduction12-16Chapter One Address Forms and Hong Lou Meng16-211.1 Motives for study16-171.2 Study of address forms and those in Hong Lou Meng17-191.3 Related translation methods and strategies191.4 Methods of study19-21Chapter Two Two Translation Methods and Two Translation Strategies21-332.1 Literal translation and free translation22-262.1.1 Literal translation23-242.1.2 Free translation24-262.2 Domestication and foreignization26-302.2.1 Domestication28-292.2.2 Foreignization29-302.3 Interrelationships among four concepts30-322.4 Summary32-33Chapter Three Comparative Study of Address Forms in Hong Lou Meng33-773.1 Kinship terms33-523.1.1 Peer kinship terms35-413.1.2 Juniors addressing seniors41-493.1.3 Seniors addressing juniors49-523.2 Fictive kinship terms52-623.2.1 Generalized usage of kinship terms54-573.2.2 Indication of emotion, identity or status57-623.3 Names62-723.3.1 Similarity of naming cultures in two languages62-633.3.2 The Yangs approach to translation of names63-663.3.3 Hawkes approach to translation of names66-713.3.4 Comparison between two approaches71-723.4 Factors accounting for differences in two address cultures72-763.5 Summary76-77Chapter Four Cultural Untranslatability and Treatment of Address Forms77-954.1 Cultural untranslatability77-874.1.1 Untranslatability in radicals (偏旁) of Chinese characters77-804.1.2 Untranslatability in puns and allusions80-834.1.3 Untranslatability in “Zi” (字), “Hao” (号), and name taboo83-874.2 Compensation for cultural default in tra