Hans Vermeer“功能理论”与“目的论”

1、关于功能翻译理论20世纪70年代至80年代，德国的卡塔琳娜莱思(K.Reiss)、汉斯弗米尔(H.J.Vermeer)、贾斯特霍斯一曼特瑞(J.H.Manttari)以及克里丝汀诺德(C.Nord)等学者提出的“功能翻译理论”为翻译理论研究开辟了一个新视角。此理论的核心是翻译目的译文功能，因此本文将借用此理论来解释编译现象。功能翻译理论的主要理论包括莱思提出的文本类型与翻译策略论、霍斯-曼特瑞的翻译行动论、弗米尔的目的论，以及诺德的翻译为本语篇分析理论。以下概述后三种论说，即翻译行动论、目的论及以翻译为本的语篇分析理论。翻译行动论(theoryoftranslationalaction)是霍斯

2、-曼特瑞于80年代提出来的(Munday2001：77)。该理论把翻译视为实现信息的跨文化、跨语言转换而设计的复杂行动。这种行动所涉及的参与者有：行动的发起者(theinitiator)、委托者(thecommissioner)、原文产生者(theSTproducer)、译文产生者(theTTproducer)、译文使用者(theTTuser)及译文接受者(theTTreceiver)o翻译理论好比环环相扣的链条，每一个环节参与者都有自己的目的，并关联到下一环节。翻译行动论强调译文在译语文化中的交际功能。因此，译文的形式并非照搬原文模式，而是取决于其是否在译语文化中合理地为其功能服务。目的论(

3、SkoposTheory)是弗米尔于20世纪70年代提出来的o(Munday2001:7879)。Skopos是希腊语，意指“目的”，其主要概念是，所有翻译遵循的首要规则就是“目的规则”，翻译目的决定翻译策略与具体的翻译方法。弗米尔认为，翻译的结果是译文，但译者必须清楚地了解翻译的目的与译文功能，才能做好翻译工作，产生出理想的译作。后来莱思与弗米尔在合著的翻译的理论基础(GroundworkforaGeneralTheoryofTranslation1984)一书中，指出了目的论的具体准贝U(Munday2001:78一79)：(1)译文(TT)决定于其目的(determinedbyitssk

4、opos)；(2)译文为目标语文化社会提供信息，其关注点是把源语语言文化信息转换为目标语语言文化信息；译文不提供模棱两可的信息；(4)译文必须能自圆其说(internallycoherent)；译文不得与原文相悖(coherentwiththeST)；(6)上述所列五条准则的顺序表明其重要性的先后顺序，而所有准贝都受目的论之支配。至于第(5)点，我们的理解是：译文必须在思想内容与内在逻辑上与原文相一致，而不是指语言形式或遣词造句上的一致。诺德的翻译的语篇分析(TextAnalysisinTranslation19881991)向读者展示了一个更为具体的功能语篇分析模式跨越字词的层面，从语篇的角

5、度来解释翻译。她首先区分比较了两种类型的翻译：纪实性翻译(documentarytranslation)和工具性翻译(instrumentaltranslation)。纪实性翻译充当了原作者和译文接受者之间进行原语文化交流的工具，原语文化特色在译文中保持不变，如逐字翻译就属纪实性翻译；后者贝是在目标语文化的交流中充当一种独立的信息传递工具，译文根据自身的目的对原文作调整。KeyConceptsofSkopostheorieSkoposistheGreekwordfor“aim”or“purpose”andwasintroducedintotranslationtheoryinthe1970sb

6、yHansVermeerasatechnicaltermforthepurposeofatranslationandoftheactionoftranslating.ThemajorworkonSkopostheory(Skopostheorie)isGroundworkforaGeneralTheoryofTranslation,abookVermeerco-authoredwithKatharinaReiss(ReissandVermeer1984).Skopostheoryfocusesaboveallonthepurposeofthetranslation,whichdetermine

7、sthetranslationmethodsandstrategiesthataretobeemployedinordertoproduceafunctionallyadequateresult.ThisresultistheTT(targettext),whichVermeercallsthetranslatum.TherefinSkopostheory,knowingwhyanST(sourcetext)istobetranslatedandwhatthefunctionoftTTwillbeofcrucialforthetranslator.Thereexistthreepossible

8、kindsofpurposeinthefieldoftranslatiotnh:egeneralpurposeaimedatbythetranslatoirnthetranslatiopnrocess(perhapstoearnalivin”g),thecommunicativepurposeaimedatbytheTTinthetargetsitua“ttionin(spteruhcatpsther”e)aderandthepurposeaimedatbyaparticulatrranslatiosntrategyorprocedure(forexample,“totranslatelite

9、rallyinordertoshowthestructuralpartic”u)la(rqittdi.esinofNotrhde,S2L001:28).Nevertheless,thetermSkoposusuallyreferstothepurposeoftheTT.Anditisthereceiver,orathertheaddressee,whoisthemainfactordeterminingtheTTSkopos.Therefore,theprimeprincipledetermininganytranslationprocessisthepurpose(Skopos)oftheo

10、veralltranslationaction.ThreeRulesofSkopostheorieAccordingtoSkopostheorie,therearethreebasicrulestogovernstahcetitvriatniselsationrtheprocessoftranslation.Skoposrule:referstothetop-rankingruleforanytranslatiownhichindicatesthatatranslationactionisdeterminedbyitsSkopos.VermeerexplainstheSkoposruleasf

11、ollows:Eachtextisproducedforagivenpurposeandshouldservethispurpose.TheSkoposrulethusreadsasfollows:translate/interpret/speak/writeinawaythatenablesyourtext/translatifunctioninthesituationinwhichitisusedandwiththepeoplewhowanttouseitandprecisethewaytheywantittofunction(qtd.inNord,2001:29)However,theS

12、koposruledoesnotofferanygeneralprincipleorstrategythatcanbeemployedtoguideanyspecifictranslatiopnrocess.Instead,theycanonlybedeterminedaccordingtothespecificSkoposreadytobeachievedbyatranslation.SinceatranslationalacisdeterminedbyitsSkopos,theSkoposruleisthetop-rankingruleforsomekindoftranslatioCohe

13、rencerule:Atranslatorissupposedtoproducedatextisatleastlikelytobemeaningtotarget-cultureceiversF.orthisend,onlywhentheTTconformstothestandardofintratextuallycoherent,canitmakesenseinthecommunicativesituationandcultureinwhichireceivedandthereceiverwillhavenodifficultyinunderstandingit.Acommunicativei

14、nteracticanonlyberegardedassuccessfulifthereceiversinterpretisasbeingsufficientlycoherenttheirsituationA.ccordingly,asanotherimportantruleofSkopostheoriet,he“coherencerule”,specifiesthatatranslationshouldbeacceptableinasensethatitiscoheresntwiththereceivsituation(qtd.inNord,2001:32).He“rceo,hebreinn

15、tgwi”thissynonymouswithbe“ipnagrto”fthereceivesrsituation.Sinceatranslationisanofferofinformationaboutaprecedingofferofinformation,itisexpectedtobearcertainrelationshipwiththecorrespondingST.Fidelityrule:VermeercallstherelationshipbetweenatranslationandthecorrespondingST“intertextualcoher”enocre“fid

16、eli”tywhichispostulatedasafurtherprincipleandreferredtoasthe“fidelityr”ul(eibid.).TheimportantpointisthatintertextualcoherenceshouldexistbetweentheSTandtheTT,whiletheformittakesdependsbothonsthienterrapnrseltaattoironoftheSTandonthetranslatioSnkopos.ThemaximallyfaithfuilmitationoftheSTisjustoneofthe

17、possiblekindsofintertexualcoherence.Inall,thethreebasicrulesoftheSkopostheoriearedesignedtogovernthetranslatosractivitiesinthewholetranslationprocess.Inmostcases,however,atranslationcannotsatisfthreerulesatthesametimeduetothereasonthattheSkoposofthetranslationisfrequentlytodeviatefromtheintentioonft

18、hecorrespondinSgLtext.Ingeneral,thehierarchicoarlderofabidanceofthethreerulesshouldbetheSkoposrulefirst,thecoherencerulesecondandthenthefidelityrule,ortoputitinanotherway,thedemandforfidelityisconsideredsubordinatetointratextualcoherence(orthecoherencerule),andbotharesubordinatetotheSkoposrule.Whena

19、translationwhichisfaithfultotheSTcannotbeeffectivelyunderstoodbytheTTreceiver,thetranslatorshouldgiveupthefidelityruleandconformtothecoherencerule,i.e.tomakehistranslationmeaningfulinthetargetcommunicativesituationandculture.IftheSkoposrequiresachangeoffunction,therequiredstandardwillnolongerbeinter

20、textualcoherencewiththeSTbutadequacyorappropriatenesswithregardtotheSkopos(qtd.inNord,2001:32-33).AndiftheSkoposdemandsintratexualincoherence,thestandardofintratextualcoherenceisnolongervalid.TranslationBriefofSkopostheorieGenerally,theSkoposisspecifiedbythetranslationbrief,inwhichtheinitiatorwouldg

21、iveasmanydetailsaspossibleaboutthepurpose,explainingtheaddressees,time,place,occasionsandmediumoftheintendedcommunicationandthefunctionthetextisintendedtohave.(“Brief”istheEnglishequivalentoftheGermanwordUbersetzungsauftrag.Itusedtobetranslatedas“commission”byVermeer,assignment”byPochhackerandKussma

22、ul,etc.HereNordadoptsJanetFrasersterm“brief”.)Exactlyspeaking,thetranslationbriefincludesthefollowinginformation:Theintendedtextfunction;Thetargettextaddressees;Thetimeandplaceoftextreception;Themediumoverwhichthetextwillbetransmitted;Themotivefortheproductionorreceptionofthetext.Thismodelspecifiesw

23、hatkindoftranslationisneededsoastoenablesthetranslatortodecidewhatinformationtoincludeinthetargettext.Guidedbythetranslationbrief,thetranslatorselectscertainitemsfromtheSLofferofinformation(originallymeantforsource-cultureaddressees)andprocessestheminordertoformanewofferofinformationinTL,fromwhichth

24、eTLaddresseescaninturnselectwhattheyconsidertobemeaningfulintheirownsituation.AdvantagesofSkopostheorieovertheTraditionalTranslationTheories4.1TraditionalEquivalence-basedApproachesForcenturies,theliteral/freetranslationhasbeenaheatingtopicforthetranslationtheoreticiansuntilthe1960swhentheybegantoan

25、alyzethetranslationsystematically.Atthattime,linguisticapproacheswerehotissuesandthedebateonmeaningandequivalencewasnodoubtthefocustherein.Overthefollowingtwentyyears,manyfurtherattemptsweremadetodefinethenatureofequivalenceandoneofthemostimportantfiguresintranslationstudiesistheAmericanEugeneNida.W

26、henhewastranslatingandorganizingthetranslationofBible,hedevelopedthetheoryofequivalence,whichwasthenelaboratedintwomajorworksinthe1960s:TowardAScienceofTranslating(1964a)andtheco-authoredTheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation(NidaandTaber1969).Inthefirstbook,Nidaattemptedtomovetranslation,Bibletranslatio

27、ninparticular,intoamorescientificerabyincorporatingrecentstudiesinlinguistics.Hedeclaredtwobasicorientationtypesofequivalence,namelyformalequivalenceanddynamicequivalence.FormalequivalenceisapproximatetoSTstructure.Sincethistypeoftranslationisoftenusedinanacademicenvironment,thestudentsareallowedtog

28、aincloseaccesstothelanguageandcustomsofthesourceculture(Munday,2001).Dynamicequivalenceisbasedontheprincipleofequivalenteffect,wherethe“relationshipbetweenreceptorandmessageshouldbesubstantiallythesameaswhichexistedbetweentheoriginalreceptorsandthemessage”(Nida,1964:159).Nidaalsoplacedspecialemphasi

29、sonthepurposeofthetranslation,ontherolesofboththetranslatorandthereceivers,andontheculturalimplicationsofthetranslatorsinthetranslationprocess:Whenthequestionofthesuperiorityofonetranslationoveranotherisraised,theanswershouldbelookedforintheanswertoanotherquestion,bestforwhom?Therelativeadequacyofdi

30、fferenttranslationsofthesametextcanonlybedeterminedintermsoftheintention,whicheachtranslationsuccessfullyfulfillsthepurposeforwhichitwasintended.Inotherwords,therelativevalidityofeachtranslationisseeninthedegreetowhichthereceptorsareabletorespondtoitsmessage(intermsofbothformandcontent)incomparisonw

31、ith(1)whattheoriginalauthorevidentlyintendedwouldbetheresponseoftheoriginalaudienceand(2)howthataudiencedid,infact,respond.Theresponsescan,ofcourse,neverbeidentical,forinterlingualcommunicationalwaysimpliessomedifferenceinculturalsetting,withaccompanyingdiversitiesinvaluesystems,conceptualpresupposi

32、tions,andhistoricalantecedents.(Nida,1976:64)Heproducedananalyticalproceduresystematicallyfortranslatorsworkingwithallkindsoftextandhislinguisticapproachtotranslationhasbeeninfluentialonmanysubsequentandprominenttranslationscholars.However,astimewentby,Nidasconceptofformalanddynamicequivalencehascom

33、etobeheavilycriticized.Scholarsfeltthatequivalencewasstilloverconcernedwiththewordlevel,andsometranslationscholarsworkingintraininginstitutionswerealsoawarethattheequivalenceapproachlackedconsistency,becauseintranslatingBibleorliteratureworks,thetheoristsofequivalencetendedtoacceptthisastheoptimumtr

34、anslationprocedure,butforpragmatictexts,suchasC-Etranslationofpublicitymaterials,theypreferredthenon-literalstrategyandinsomecases,equivalencemightevennotbecalledforatall.Thisdifferentorevencontradictorystandardmadetheequivalenceapproachratherconfusing,andsomescholarsgotmoreandmoredoubtfulandunsatis

35、fiedwith.Undersuchcircumstances,theystartedtoseekforamorepracticaltheory.4.2AdvantagesofSkopostheorieFromtheaboveanalysis,wecanseethatthedisadvantagesofthetraditionalequivalence-basedapproachesarethattheyjustconsiderthestaticrelationshipbetweentheSTandtheTTwithoutpayingtoomuchattentiontosomeotherdyn

36、amicrelationshipsandfactors.Equivalence-basedtheoriesfocusontheSTaccordingtowhichthefeaturesoftheSTmustbepreservedintheTT,andtheTTmustbeequivalenttotheST.Theyexcludemanytranslationalphenomenasuchasrewritingandreconstructingfromthefieldoftranslationstudyandthuscanhardlydescribesomecommonphenomenaintr

37、anslationstudy.Therefore,somescholarsbegantoquestiontheequivalence-basedtranslationtheories.Newtheorieswerecalledfor.ThisiswhereSkopostheorieemergedin1970swhichintendedtobreakupwithlinguistictranslationtheoryandbridgethegapbetweentheoryandpractice.AnimportantadvantageofSkopostheorieisthatitallowsthe

38、possibilityofthesametextbeingtranslatedindifferentwaysaccordingtothepurposeoftheTTandthecommissionwhichisgiventothetranslator.InVermeerswords:WhattheSkoposstatesisthatonemusttranslate,consciouslyandconsistently,inaccordancewithsomeprinciplerespectingthetargettext.Thetheorydoesnotstatewhattheprincipl

39、eis:thismustbedecidedseparatelyineachspecificcase.(Vermeer1989/2000:228)So,usingVermeersownexample,anambiguityinawillwritteninFrenchwouldneedtobetranslatedliterally,withafootnoteorcomment,foraforeignlawyerdealingwiththecase.Ontheotherhand,ifthewillappearedinanovel,thetranslatormightprefertofindaslig

40、htlydifferentambiguitythatworksintheTLwithouttheneedofaformalfootnote,soasnottointerruptthereadingprocess.Inaword,Skopostheorieenjoysadvantagesoverthetraditionaltranslationtheoriesattachingtoomuchimportanceto“equivalence”or“faithfulness”.Because,traditionally,itisconsideredthatthetranslatorstaskisto

41、offerthesameamountandkindofinformationastheSTproducer.Thisequivalence-basedcriterionwasregardedasthestandardtoevaluateatranslation.WhileReissandVermeermaintainwhatthetranslatordoesistoofferanotherkindofinformationinanotherform,whichhas“directlychallengethetraditionalconceptofequivalenceasaconstituti

42、vefeatureoftranslation”(Nord,2001:35)附1：目的论与编译编译编译(adaptation)是译者自由度最大的一种翻译方法，接近于根据原文进行改写或改编。在文学翻译和其他一些有特殊目的的翻译活动中，这种翻译方法比较常见。例如：白日依山尽，黄河入海流。欲穷千里目，更上一层楼。(王之涣)Westwardthesun,endingthedaysjourneyinaslowdescentbehindthemountains.EastwardtheYellowRiver,emptyingintothesea.Tolookbeyond,untothefarthesthori

43、zon,upward!Upanotherstorey!(翁显良译)到过真正法国拉丁区的人，都知道这是一个文人艺术家的集散地，无论你是什么人，也要来感受澳门这间以此命名的餐厅。水晶灯下，柔和的光线散落在餐厅每一个角落，舒适宽敞的高背座椅，一丝不苟的摆设，都令人有回到家那份温暖的感觉，兴致所至，走到钢琴前轻奏一曲，浪漫气氛不言而喻。与亲友畅谈时，品尝粉红色的“三文鱼红酒醋摩士”，令胃口大开。热盘“煎鸡肉片沙律配野草莓汁”及“煎牛肉片配茄肉白酒汁”，魅力没法挡。再细意品尝鲜甜多汁的“芒果雪芭”，在不知不觉之间，你会发现自己已经爱上这个地方。FrancesworldfamousLatinQuarter

44、hasinspiredcountlessartists,musiciansandwritersduringitslong,distinguishedhistory.Andbathedinthedelicatelightofcrystalchandeliers,theintimateambienceandsoothingpianomusicofMacausveryownLaComediewillalmostcertainlyinspireyoutocreateamasterpieceortwoofyourown.Butbeforeyougotowork,besuretosavourarangeo

45、fincomparablyfinemenuwhosemanyhighightsinclude“MousseofSalmonwithBalsamiqueVinegar”and“Pan-firedSlicedChickenwithSaladandRaspberrySeasoning”.AndbesuretoleavealittlespaceattheendofyourmealforLaComediesabsolutelyirresistible“MangoSorbet”.(摘自澳门旅游宣传册)以上的两个译例中，第一篇原文是五言古诗，译者在翻译时加以改变，采用了散文体的形式阐释原文的内容。第二篇是旅

46、游宣传广告，原文中的内容在翻译时也同样出现了许多改编之处，包括删减、添加、重写等等。以上我们简要介绍了几种常见的翻译方法。从宏观的角度而言，我们按照侧重于原文抑或是侧重于译文的程度来区别不同的翻译方法。事实上，这些不同的方法在翻译理论研究和翻译实践中一直受到不同研究者的关注。例如，早在19世纪初期，德国神学家兼翻译家施莱艾尔马赫(FreidrichSchleiermacher1768-1834)在其论翻译的不同方法一书中就曾提出过两种不同的翻译策略选择：一是将译文读者领向原文作者，即顺从原文；另一是将原文作者，引向译文读者，即顺从译文(Munday2001：28)。可以说，这一观点是较早从原文

47、和译文两个方面同时关注翻译方法的理论。后来的学者，如珀斯盖特J.P.Postgate：1992)提出的前瞻式(prospectivetranslation)和后顾式(retrospectivetranslation)翻译方法，以及温努提(LawrenceVenuti:1995)提出的异化(foreignizingtranslation)和归化(domestication)的方法，都从不同的侧面强调了翻译方法与原文和译文各自的关系。有一点需要指出的是：这些方法之间并不是完全独立，互不相关的。从本章的图31中我们也可以注意到，这几种翻译方法之间的关系更像是一个连续体(continuum)的关系：从

48、几乎与原文一对一的逐字翻译到脱开原文形式而自由发挥的编译，译文同原文语言表达形式的对应程度逐渐减少；与此同时，译文符合译语表达习惯和可接受性的程度又逐渐增加。事实上，在翻译实践中，译者通常不会仅仅局限于采用某一种翻译方法，而是根据不同的需要，灵活选用不同的翻译方法和策略。这也是我们下一节将要讨论的问题。影响翻译方法的因素翻译是一种特殊形式的语言活动，涉及原文产生、原文理解、译文表达、译文接受等诸多环节。这些不同的步骤和因素都在不同程度上影响到译者所选择的具体翻译方法。我们在这里简要提及三个方面的因素。1.语篇类型语篇(text)是人们在交往中传达各种信息的一个语义单位(黄国文1988：78)。

49、由于受不同交际场合和不同交际目标的影响，语篇呈现出许多不同的变体，这也就是我们所说的语篇类型(texttypes)。例如，根据语篇的范围，我们可以将语篇分为：宗教语篇、文学语篇、新闻语篇、科技语篇、广告语篇、法律语篇等类型。这些不同类型的语篇各自都具有比较鲜明的语言表达形式和特点。在翻译活动中，这些不同的语言表达方式会直接关系到翻译方法的选择和使用。例如：(李运兴2001：75，100)Springarenotalwaysthesaine.Insomeyears,AprilburstsuponourVirginiahillsinoneprodigiousleapandallthestageis

50、filledatonce,wholechorusosoftulips,ambesqueofforsythia,cadenzasoffloweringplum.Thetreesgrowleavesovernight.春天并非总是一模一样。四月，有时不知怎地一跃，就来到了弗吉尼亚的山坡上转眼到处生机勃勃。郁金香组成了大合唱，连翘构成了阿拉伯式图案，洋李唱出了婉转的歌声。一夜之间，林木着装，绿叶瑟瑟。Multiplereflections,mistakes,anddiffractioneffectsattheedgesofthesamplearegenerallyconsideredthemains

51、ourcesoferrors.Toenhancethemeasurementaccuracy,specialattentionmustbepaidtothechoiceoftheradiatingelements,thedesignofthesampleholders,andthesamplethicknessandlocationbetweenthetworadiatingelements.多次反射、失配，及样品边缘的衍射效应是误差的主要根源。为提高测量的精度，应特别注意辐射元件的选择，样品支架的设计以及辐射元件间的样品的厚度和取向。例(1)的原文摘自一篇散文作品。译者在正确传达原文意义的前

52、提下，充分发挥译文语言的特点，注重采用符合译语表达习惯、容易为译语读者所接受方式来翻译这一文学语篇。如，将原文中的词组“wholechonlsesoftulips,arabesqueofforsythia,cadenzasoffloweringplum扩充为三个并列小句：“郁金香组成了大合唱，连翘构成了阿拉伯式图案，洋李唱出了婉转的歌声”，这种意译的翻译处理方法，使译文再现了原文中鲜明的生动形象特征。另外，使用“生机勃勃”、“一夜之间，林木着装，绿叶瑟瑟”等汉语中常见的成语和四字表达法，也增加了译文的可读性。这种以译语为主的翻译方法，在文学语篇及其它一些类型语篇的翻译中十分普遍。例(2)选自科

53、技语篇。原文中的句子结构严谨，措辞客观中立，同时还有许多专业术语和表达法。译者在翻译这一语篇时，采用了忠实于原文的方法来处理其中的语言表达。如，句型结构紧扣原文，没有任何调整或改动，术语的措辞也完全对应于原文中的表达方式。这种注重原文的翻译方法，是科技语篇、法律语篇等类型的语篇翻译时比较常见的方法。2翻译目的除语篇类型的因素外，翻译方法的选择同译者的翻译目的也有很大的关系。例如：(冯庆华2002：472)“姥姥既如此说，况且当年你又见过这姑太太一次，何不你老人家明日就走一趟，先试试风头再说。”刘姥姥道：“嗳哟哟！可是说的，侯门深似海，我是个什么东西，他家人又不认得我，我去了也是白去的”。(红楼

54、梦第六回)A“Sincethisisyouridea,mother,andyouvecalledontheladybefore,whynotgotheretomorrowandseehowthewindblows?”“Aiya!Thethresholdofanoblehouseisdeeperthanthesea.AndwhoamI?Theservantstheredontknowme,itsnousemygoing.”(杨宪益、戴乃迭译)B“Well,ifitsasyousay,Grannie,andbeingasyouvealreadyseenthislady,whynotgotherey

55、ourselfandspyoutthelandforus?”“Blessusandsaveus!”saidGrannieLiu.“Youknowwhattheysay:Aprincesdoorislikethedeepsea.Whatsortofcreaturedoyoutakemefor?Theservantstheredontknowme;itwouldbeajourneywasted.”(DavidHawkes译)以上两种译文中，第一种注重原文的语言表达方式在译文中的再现，第二种则倾向于使用译语中的表达方式传递原文的含义。例如，“试试风头”这一原语中的习语，在杨译本中按照原文的表达方式再

56、现为“seehowthewindblows”；而在Hawkes译本中则选用了“spyouttheland”，这样一个译语中的习语表达方式。又如，感叹语“嗳哟哟”，在第一种译本里采用了音译的方法，直接将原文的表达方式移入译语中；而第二种译本则使用了译语里的习惯表达方式：“Blessusandsaveus”。这两种不同的翻译处理手法，同译者各自不同的翻译目的有着很密切的联系。杨译本旨在将原语文化及其语言表达方式介绍到译语文化中，向译语文化输入具有异国情调的新元素，因此，重视原文的内容和表达成为翻译过程中首先要考虑的因素，同时也决定和影响了具体翻译方法的选择。Hawkes译本旨在向译语读者推介一部经

57、典文学作品，译文的可读性、可接受性以及可能畅销的程度，是译者关注的重点，因此，使用译语读者熟悉的表达方式来传达原文的内容，成为译者在选择具体翻译方法时需要考虑的主要的因素。这两种不同的翻译目的也由此产生了两种风格不同的译本。3读者对象在翻译活动中，译文的读者对象是另一个影响翻译方法的因素。虽然译者并不能完全清楚地了解和知晓译文的具体读者对象，但是，在翻译时译者心目中始终存在一个目标读者群，这类目标读者会在一定程度上影响译者所选择的翻译处理方法。例如：OnenightthereflewoverthecityalittleSwallow.HisfriendshadgoneawaytoEgyptsi

58、xweeksbefore,buthehadstayedbehind,forhewasinlovewiththemostbeautifulReed.Hehadmetherearlyinthespring,ashewasflyingdowntheriverafterabigyellowmoth,andhadbeensoattractedbyherslenderwaistthathehadstoppedtotalktoher(OscarWilde,TheHappyPrince)某一个夜晚一只小燕子飞过城市的上空。他的朋友们六个星期以前就到埃及去了，但是他还留在后面，因为他恋着那根最美丽的芦苇。他还是

59、在早春遇见她的，那时他正沿着河顺流飞去，追一只黄色飞蛾，她的细腰很吸引他的注意，他便站住同他谈起话来。(巴金译)andthehistoricalsenseinvolvesaperception,notonlyofthepastnessofthepast,butofitspresence;thehistoricalsensecompelsamantowritenotmerelywithhisowngenerationinhisbones,butwithafeelingthatthewholeoftheliteratureofEuropefromHomerandwithinitthewholeof

60、theliteratureofhisowncountryhasasimultaneousexistenceandcomposesasimultaneousorder.Thishistoricalsense,whichisasenseofthetimelessaswellasofthetemporalandofthetimelessandthetemporaltogether,iswhatmakesawritertraditional.Anditisatthesametimewhatmakesawritermostacutelyconsciousofhisplaceintime,ofhisown