第六章國外翻譯理論著作選段漢譯

1、第六章 國外翻譯理論著作選段漢譯,第一節(jié)第二節(jié)第三節(jié)第四節(jié),第一節(jié),81-85,Original 81:,In their work over the past twenty years, Susan Bassenett and André Lefevere have consistently built bridges within the field of translation studies and dev

2、eloped interdisciplinary connections to fields of study outside the discipline. In 1990, they were the first to suggest that translation studies take the ‘cultural turn’ and look toward work of cultural studies scholars.

3、 In their new book Constructing Cultures, they present a strong case for moving the field of cultural studies closer to translation studies.,Original 81 (continued):,New strategies gleaned from translation histories, suc

4、h as we see in Lefevere’s discussion of Aeneid translations or Bassanett’s discussion of Inferno translations that follow, not only give translators more insight into the actual practice of translation, but they also giv

5、e cultural studies critics new insight into cultural manipulation by those in power.,Original 81 (continued):,Following Bassnett and Lefevere, translators have increasingly become more empowered and less self-effacing, a

6、 development that has allowed theorists to better view the process of mediating between cultures and /or of introducing different words, forms, cultural nuances, and meaning into their own respective cultures.(Bassnett

7、and Lefevere, 2000: ix),1) Analysis of the original:,A) Grammatical analysisB) Stylistic analysis,A) Grammatical analysis:,(1) Sentence structure(2) Additional complication,(1) Sentence structure：,The selection consist

8、s of five sentences, of which the first is in a simple sentence; the second is a complex sentence, composed of a main clause and an object clause; the third is again a simple sentence; the fourth is a compound sentence,

9、composed of two coordinate clauses, but the subject of the first coordinate clause has an attributive clause embedded; and the last is a simple sentence, followed by an appositive nominal phrase, in which there is an att

10、ributive clause embedded. For this reason, the fourth can be regarded as a compound complex sentence and the last can be regarded as a complex sentence.,(2) Additional complication：,The first three sentences each begin w

11、ith a prepositional phrase; in the fourth sentence, the part after the first comma assumes a parenthetic structure; and the last sentence begins with a present participle phrase and it has a long appositive phrase at its

12、 end with an attributive clause embedded.,B) Stylistic analysis:,(1) Periodicity(2) Structural complication(3) Parallel structure(4) Cohesive device(5) Structural and lexical formality,(1) Periodicity：,All the five s

13、entences are periodic in structure either for the beginning with prepositional or participle phrases or for the embedding of the parenthesis.,(2) Structural complication:,AS can be seen from the grammatical analysis and

14、the analysis of the periodicity, of the five, four are either complex or compound complex sentences, and all the five sentences are periodic in structure. All this indicates that the selection is rather structurally comp

15、licated.,(3) Parallel structure：,In the selection, parallel structures are frequently used, for example, Susan Bassenett and André Lefevere; built bridges within the field of translation studies and developed interd

16、isciplinary connections to fields of study outside the discipline; take the ‘cultural turn’ and look toward work of cultural studies scholars; Lefevere’s discussion of Aeneid translations or Bassanett’s discussion of Inf

17、erno translations; not only give translators more insight into the actual practice of translation, but they also give cultural studies critics new insight into cultural manipulation; more empowered and less self-effacing

18、; of mediating between cultures and /or of introducing different words, forms, cultural nuances, and meaning into their own respective cultures; and words, forms, cultural nuances, and meaning.,(4) Cohesive device：,In te

19、rms of cohesive device, examples could be found as follows: parallel structures are frequently used; Susan Bassenett and André Lefevere are repeated either singularly or in combination; the pronoun they is repeatedl

20、y used to refer to Susan Bassenett and André Lefevere; cultural turn and cultural studies are used in connection, with the latter repeated used; the field, interdisciplinary, field of study, disciple and translation

21、 studies are used either as synonyms or in contrast; translation and translators are repeatedly used in a related manner, and so on.,(5) Structural and lexical formality：,Structurally, the selection is formal in that the

22、 sentences the selection is composed of are grammatically complete and free from colloquial structures. Lexically, formal words, including nominalizations, are frequently used, for example, consistently, translation, dev

23、elop, interdisciplinary, cultural, scholar, constructing, present, strategy, history, translator, practice, critics, insight, manipulation, increasingly, empower, and others.,2) Staged translation:,A. Translation 1 with

24、commentsB. Translation 2 with commentsC. Translation 3 with comments,A) Translation 1:,在過去20年的著述中，蘇珊.巴斯內特和安德烈.勒菲弗爾堅持不懈地在翻譯研究領域內架設橋梁，建立起通向翻譯學科之外的其他研究領域的聯(lián)系。1990年，他們率先提出翻譯研究應該實現“文化轉向”，審視文化研究學者們的著述。在他們的新作《文化建構》一書中，他們用有力的事例

25、說明，文化研究領域正在向翻譯研究靠攏。我們從后面勒菲弗爾關于翻譯《阿雷得》的或巴斯內特關于翻譯《尹佛諾》的討論中會看到，新的翻譯策略，從翻譯歷史中汲取營養(yǎng)，不僅為譯者提供了洞察實際翻譯操作的新視野，也為文化研究批評家們提供了審視掌權者進行文化操縱的新觀點。接受巴斯內特和勒菲弗爾的觀點，翻譯家們越來越具有駕馭能力，越來越不遮遮掩掩。這種發(fā)展趨勢，使理論家們能更好地看清文化的中介過程，同時或者更清楚了將不同的詞語、形式、文化的細微差異和意義

26、引入他們自己的文化的過程。,Comments:,The present translation has two preeminent characteristics. First, it follows the original strictly, and consequently, some expressions are too long and clumsy, for example, 我們從后面勒菲弗爾關于翻譯《阿雷得》的或巴斯

27、內特關于翻譯《尹佛諾》的討論中會看到，新的翻譯策略，從翻譯歷史中汲取營養(yǎng)，不僅為譯者提供了洞察實際翻譯操作的新視野，也為文化研究批評家們提供了審視掌權者進行文化操縱的新觀點 and這種發(fā)展趨勢，使理論家們能更好地看清文化的中介過程，同時或者更清楚了將不同的詞語、形式、文化的細微差異和意義引入他們自己的文化的過程. Secondly, the translations of Aeneid and Inferno into《阿雷得》and

28、《尹佛諾》are against translation conventions.,B) Translation 2:,在過去20年的著述中，蘇珊.巴斯內特和安德烈.勒菲弗爾堅持不懈地在翻譯研究領域內進行溝通，構建和翻譯研究領域外的各領域的聯(lián)系。1990年，他們率先建議，翻譯研究應實現“文化轉向”，從文化研究學者們那里汲取營養(yǎng)。在他們的新著《文化建構》一書中，他們以有力的證據說明了文化研究正在向翻譯研究靠攏。后面勒菲弗爾對《埃涅依特》的

29、各種譯本所作的討論，或巴斯內特對《地獄篇》的各種譯本所作的討論可以看出，新的戰(zhàn)略從翻譯歷史汲取營養(yǎng)，不僅為譯者審視實際翻譯過程提供了更敏銳的洞察力，而且為文化研究批評家們審視當權者如何進行文化操縱提供了新的視角。追隨巴斯內特和勒菲弗爾，譯者們越來越嶄露頭角，較少隱姓埋名。這一發(fā)展趨勢，是理論家們更好地觀照文化的中介過程，更好地觀照將不同的詞語、形式、文化差異和意義引入他們自己的文化之中的過程。,Comments:,In the pres

30、ent translation, all the weak points are eliminated. However, the meaning of the first sentence is not made explicit, and 后面勒菲弗爾對《埃涅依特》的各種譯本所作的討論，或巴斯內特對《地獄篇》的各種譯本所作的討論可以看出，新的戰(zhàn)略從翻譯歷史汲取營養(yǎng)，不僅為譯者審視實際翻譯過程提供了更敏銳的洞察力，而且為文化研究批評

31、家們審視當權者如何進行文化操縱提供了新的視角 is still a clumsy translation.,C) Translation 3:,在過去20年中，蘇珊.巴斯內特和安德烈.勒菲弗爾不斷著書立說，努力在翻譯研究領域內進行溝通，架設通向翻譯研究領域之外的橋梁。1990年，他們率先提出，翻譯研究應“轉向文化”，從文化研究學者那里汲取營養(yǎng)。在其新著《文化建構》中，他們以有力的證據說明了文化研究正在向翻譯研究靠攏。本書的后面，勒菲弗爾

32、將對《埃涅依特》①的各種譯本進行討論，巴斯內特將對《地獄篇》②的各種譯本進行討論。從中可以看出，新的研究策略從翻譯歷史汲取營養(yǎng)，不僅使譯者能更洞察翻譯的實際過程，而且為文化研究批評家研究當權者進行文化操縱提供了新的視角。以巴斯內特和勒菲弗爾的觀點武裝自己，譯者的主人翁意識日益增強，隱姓埋名的做法日漸減少。,Translation 3 (continued):,這一發(fā)展趨勢，使理論家更清晰地認識作為文化中介的翻譯過程，更好地認識將不同的詞

33、語、形式、文化差異和意義引入自家文化的過程。① 古羅馬詩人維吉爾用拉丁文寫的一部史詩，分為十二冊，敘述特洛伊陷落以后的情況?！栋Ｄ捞亍肥羌s定俗成的譯名。② 但丁所作的《神曲》的第一部，傳統(tǒng)上譯為《地獄篇》。,Comments:,Compared with the previous translation, the present translation has included two great changes. First,

34、在過去的20年中，蘇珊.巴斯內特和安德烈.勒菲弗爾不斷著書立說，努力在翻譯研究領域內部進行溝通，架設通向翻譯研究領域之外的橋梁and本書的后面，勒菲弗爾將對《埃涅依特》①的各種譯本進行討論，巴斯內特將對《地獄篇》②的各種譯本進行討論。從中可以看出，新的研究策略從翻譯歷史汲取營養(yǎng)，不僅使譯者能更洞察翻譯的實際過程，而且為文化研究批評家研究當權者進行文化操縱提供了新的視角are substituted for the correspondi

35、ng parts in the previous translation. Secondly, two notes are added for the convenience of the reader.,Original 82:,We also need to learn more about the texts that constitute the cultural capital of other civilizations,

36、and we need to learn about them in ways that try to overcome, or bypass the kiss of death bestowed by acculturation through analogy. Haikus are not epigrams, Chinese novels have their own rules, both the textual and conc

37、eptual grids of other civilizations should not be reduced to those of the West. We need to find out how to translate the cultural capital of other civilizations in a way that preserves at least part of their own nat

38、ure, without producing translations that are so low on the entertainment factor that they appeal only to those who read for professional reasons.,Original 82 (continued):,Perhaps this is another area in which different f

39、orms of rewriting need to cooperate: we could imagine the translated text, translated by a long introduction which sets out to show how the original text works on its own terms, within its own grid, rather than to tell r

40、eaders only what it is ‘like’ or even ‘most like’ in their own cultures. This kind of attempt is mot likely to bring us up against the limits of translation, a necessary confrontation, for without such a challenge, how e

41、lse are we ever to overcome such limits and move on? (Bassnett and Lefevere 2000: 11),1) Analysis of the original:,A) Grammatical analysisB) Stylistic analysis,A) Grammatical analysis:,(1) Sentence structure(2) Additi

42、onal complication,(1) Sentence structure：,The selection consists of two paragraphs, of which the first is composed of two sentences while the second paragraph is composed of three sentences. In the first paragraph, the f

43、irst is a compound sentence, composed of two coordinate clauses, each with an attributive clause embedded. In this sense, the sentence can be regarded as a compound complex one. The second is also a compound sentence, co

44、mposed of three coordinate clauses. In the second paragraph, the first is a complex sentence, composed of a main clause and an elliptic object clause, which in turn has an attributive clause embedded; and at the end of t

45、he sentence, there is a prepositional phrase, in which there is an attributive clause embedded, which is in the so… that… pattern with the clause introduced by that serving as adverbial of result.,Sentence structure (con

46、tinued):,The second is a compound sentence, composed of two coordinate clauses, connected by a colon; in the first coordinate clause, there is another clause embedded serving as the prepositional object; the second coord

47、inate clause is composed of a clause and a past participle phrase, which has an attributive clause embedded, and in the attributive clause, there are two coordinate infinitive phrases connected by rather than, and each i

48、nfinitive phrase has an object clause embedded. The third is a compound sentence, composed of two coordinate clauses connected by for.,(2) Additional complication：,The two sentences in the first paragraph do not present

49、any additional complication. In the second paragraph, however, the first sentence has a long prepositional phrase positioned at the end of the sentence; the second sentence begins with an adverb; the third sentence has a

50、 parenthetic structure embedded after the first comma.,B) Stylistic analysis:,(1) Periodicity(2) Structural complication(3) Parallel structure(4) Cohesive device(5) Structural and lexical formality,(1) Periodicity：,I

51、n the first paragraph, the two sentences are loose in structure; in the second paragraph, the first sentence is loose in structure if the prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence is not regarded as parenthetic; th

52、e second sentence begins with an adverb and can be regarded as periodic; the third sentence has a parenthetic structure embedded and is periodic in structure.,(2) Structural complication:,Generally speaking, the selectio

53、n is structurally complicated. Specifically, all the sentences are either compound or compound complex in structure; two sentences have either a parenthesis embedded or a complicated beginning.,(3) Parallel structure：,In

54、 the selection, parallel structures are frequently used, for example, overcome, or bypass; Haikus are not epigrams, Chinese novels have their own rules; textual and conceptual; on its own terms, within its own grid; to s

55、how…, rather then to tell…; and ‘like’ or even ‘most like’.,(4) Cohesive device：,In terms of cohesive device, examples could be found as follows: parallel structures are frequently used; we, cultural capital, translated,

56、 own, like and limits are repeated; the pronoun them is used to refer to other civilizations; cultural, acculturation and culture are used as cognates; textual is used as a partial repetition of text; and there are other

57、s.,(5) Structural and lexical formality：,Structurally, the selection is formal in that the sentences the selection is composed of are grammatically complete and free from colloquial structures. Lexically, formal words, i

58、ncluding nominalizations, are frequently used, for example, constitute, cultural, capital, civilization, learn, overcome, bypass, bestow, acculturation, analogy, epigram, novel, textual, conceptual, reduce, translate, pr

59、eserve, nature, producing, translation, entertainment, appeal, professional, and many others.,2) Staged translation:,A. Translation 1 with commentsB. Translation 2 with commentsC. Translation 3 with comments,A) Transla

60、tion 1:,我們還必須學會更多地了解構成異文明的文化資本的文本，我們要學會了解這些文明試圖征服或逃脫類比產生的文化蠶食帶來的劫難的方式。哈庫斯不是短詩，中文小說有自己的規(guī)則，異文明的文本與概念網絡不應該簡化成西方的文本與概念網絡。 我們必須發(fā)現如何將異文明的文化資本翻譯成至少能部分地保留它們自己的本色，而不翻譯成令人索然無味只有專業(yè)人士才去閱讀的低劣譯作。也許，這是各種形式的改寫需要彼此合作的另一個領域：我們可以想象，翻

61、譯過的文本，帶上一個很長的引言，以揭示原文文本在自己的網絡系統(tǒng)中是如何別具一格的，而不是告訴讀者，在他們自己的文化里，原文“像”個什么樣子的或“酷似”什么樣子的。這種嘗試最有可能使我們去反對翻譯的極限，這是我們必須面對的，因為，如果沒有這樣的挑戰(zhàn)，我們將如何超越極限勇往直前呢？,Comments:,Through translation, we have produced basically a readable, coherent a

62、nd authentic text except for a mistake that Haiku is a form of Japanese poetry and Haikus is the plural form of Haiku. However, some sentences are too long, and the coherence between sentences is not sound enough. For ex

63、ample, 我們還必須學會更多地了解構成異文明的文化資本的文本，我們要學會了解這些文明試圖征服或逃脫類比產生的文化蠶食帶來的劫難的方式; 我們必須發(fā)現如何將異文明的文化資本翻譯成至少能部分地保留它們自己的本色，而不翻譯成令人索然無味只有專業(yè)人士才去閱讀的低劣譯作; and也許，這是各種形式的改寫需要彼此合作的另一個領域：我們可以想象，翻譯過的文本，帶上一個很長的引言，以揭示原文文本在自己的網絡系統(tǒng)中是如何別具一格的，而不是告訴讀者，在

64、他們自己的文化里，原文“像”個什么樣子的或“酷似”什么樣子的are too long for the Chinese reader and the parts before and after the colon in the above translation are not coherent enough.,B) Translation 2:,我們還得學會了解構成他域文明的文化資本的文本，了解這些文本是如何戰(zhàn)勝或逃避通過類比實現文化

65、同化所帶來的劫難的。俳句不是雋語，中國小說有自己的規(guī)則，他域文明的文本網格和概念網格不應簡化成西方的文本網格與概念網格。 我們還得找到翻譯他域文明的文化資本的方法，譯文至少部分地保留他域文明的原貌，而不至于生成興味索然、人們?yōu)榱饲笾湃ラ喿x的譯文。這或許已經進入了另一個領域，在這個領域中，不同的改寫形式得相互合作：我們能夠設想出一種譯文文本，翻譯時有一個很長的導言，以說明原文文本是如何以自身的條件、在自己的網格之內運作的，而

66、不是以自己的文化為參照來告訴讀者，原文“像”什么樣的，甚至“酷似”什么樣的。這種嘗試最有可能使我們挑戰(zhàn)翻譯的極限，因為，如果沒有這種挑戰(zhàn)，我們又怎能跨越這種極限而勇往直前呢？,Comments:,In the present translation, the mistake is put right now. Moreover, the first sentence of the original is translated short

67、er by omitting the repeated part我們還得學會; in the translation of the second paragraph of the original such translation techniques as insertion of a phrase or two for better coherence, making implied meaning more explicit an

68、d so on are employed. For example, 在這個領域中and 翻譯時有are inserted; 為參照; 這種嘗試; and跨越這種極限are more explicit expressions.,C) Translation 3:,文本是構成他文化的文化資本的有機成分，我們還得學會更多地了解文本。通過類比夷平文化差異，這是死亡之吻①。我們還得了解這些文本是如何戰(zhàn)勝或逃避這一劫難的。俳句②不是雋語，中文小說