交往行为理论下译者主体性探讨——以《夏洛的网》四个中译本为例

发布时间:2022-05-13 21:47:40 论文编辑:vicky

本文是一篇英语论文,笔者认为译者的主体性是主动性和被动性的结合,这种结合是动态的和多样的,因为不同的交际行为导致不同的翻译风格。第四章从交际行为理论的角度对《夏洛特的网》四个中译本中译者的主体性进行了分析和描述,并对这四个译本进行了全面的评价。

Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Research background

The development of translation studies accelerates the displaying of the translator’s subjectivity.  In  the  west,  Eugene  Nida,  George  Mounin,  J.  C.  Catford,  and  Roman Jacobson see the translation as a linguistic activity aiming to reach a level of equivalence. Accordingly, the task of the translator is to transfer message from the Source Language into the Target Language. In 1928, Benjamin (2000) puts forward his translation theories in  his  article  The  Task  of  the  Translator,  in  which  the  concept  of  originality  and authorship  are  primarily  modified.  Then  Susan  Bassnett  (1998)  points  out  that  the concentration of translation study in the 1970s and 1980s turns to history and power, and the keyword of translation studies in the 1990s is “visibility”. Under the circumstance of the “culture turn”, the deconstructionists Venuti and Douglas lay great emphasis on the translator’s part in translation.

In ancient China, translation is looked down upon and regarded as parasitical and secondary art. At that time, the translator is regarded as a tongue man, or  a imitating officer  who  transmits  the  word.  In  1984,  Luo  Xinzhang  summaries  the  traditional translation theory system as semantic equivalence, faithfulness, spiritual resemblance, and transmigration. Under this circumstance, the role of the translator is changing gradually. These  theories  make  translators  have  even  more  freedom  in  translation  to  exert  their creativity and subjectivity. 

1.2 Research objectives

The  thesis  attempts  to  conduct  a  social  philosophy-based  analysis  to  make  a descriptive  and  explanatory  study  of  the  translator’s  subjectivity  on  the  four  Chinese versions of Charlotte’s Web. Bearing this in mind, this study is carried out:

1) To test the hypothesis that in translating the translator chooses the style of the Target Text based on the communications with other subjects.

2) To provide a new understanding and shed light on the study of the translator’s subjectivity. 

3) To propose a philosophy-based and replicable model for the evaluation of the translated version in literary translation.

Chapter Two  The Translator’s Subjectivity: the State of the Art

2.1 The changing status of the translator

Translation  activities  have  a  long  history  in  human  society.  The  translator,  as  an important  participant  in  translation,  has  been  playing  a  significant  role  in  connecting different  languages  and  cultures.  For  a  long  time,  the  translator’s  role  has  been marginalized.  Many  derogatory  names  for  translators  such  as  a  painter,  an  imitator,  a camera  and  a  copy  machine  (Ge,  2006)  reflect  the  inferior  status  of  translators. Translators’ painstaking efforts have not been given due respect and recognition until the “culture  turn” in translation studies.  In  the  following,  the  author  provides  the  general review to describe the role of the translator in the major approaches of translation studies. It is also the developing process of the translator’s subjectivity.

The traditional translation theory focuses mainly on the fidelity which emphasizes the comparison between the Source Text and the Target Text. It requires the translator to be faithful to the Source Text author. The author is the master while the translator serves as a faithful slave subordinated to the author.

In the west, the earliest translation could be traced back to the Bible translation. The translator is required to be faithful to the Source Text and do the translation cautiously. Otherwise,  a  few  deviations  might  cause  misfortune.  In  the  medieval  age,  Manlius Boethus  claims  that  “translation  should  focus  on  the  objective  facts  and  translators should give up his subjective judgment in translation.” (Tan, 2004, p. 43) John Dryden of the 17th  century used the  word  “slave”  to  name  the  translator,  which  means  that  the translator is the slave of the Source Text author. And other translation critics, such as Charles Batteus, George Steiner, Valery Larbaud and Monnan Shapiro all describe the translator as the servant, the shadowy presence, the beggar at the church door, and the invisible man respectively. (Tan, 2004) According to them, the translator should always strictly  follow  the  Source  Text  faithfully  and  subordinate  himself  to  the  Source  Text author.

2.2 Definitions of subject and subjectivity in translation

The  “Subject”  derives  from  the  Latin  word  “subjectum”.  It  has  “object”  as  its anatomy. Aristotle first  defines that “a subject is an observer  and  an  object  is  a  thing observed”. Based on the previous studies, it has been made clear that the “subject” is the undertaker of an action, and the “object” is the receiver of an action. According to this definition, the subjectivity refers to the natural characteristics of a subject,  namely  the “individual  interpretations  of  experiences  consisting  of  emotional,  intellectual,  and spiritual perceptions and misconception” (Solomon, 2005, p. 900). In other words, the subjectivity refers to the individual’s self-determination, dynamic, and creativity.

It is universally accepted that translation is a complicated activity with various roles involved. When translating, the translator must first understand the Source Text before transforming  the  meaning  of  the  Source  Text  to  the  Target  Text  readers.  During  the whole  process,  the  translator  is  also  the  reader  of  the  Source  Text,  attempting  to understand the referential and implied meaning, and meanwhile the translator plays the role of the author of the Target Text, trying to make the Target Text readers have the same reaction to the Target Text. In this way, the Source Text author acts as the subject only in the process of the translator’s understanding, and the Target Text reader is the subject only in the process of the Target Text’s acceptance. It is the translator that takes part in the whole translating process, acting as the most active subject in understanding and interpreting. Based on this, this thesis selects the translator  as the study object to further explore its value.

英语论文怎么写

Chapter Three   The Theoretical Basis and Research Data........................ 16

3.1 Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action............................ 16

3.1.1 The communication rationality................................. 16

3.1.2 The consensus of truth............................... 17

Chapter Four   The Translator’s Subjectivity in Light of the TCA on Four Chinese  Versions of Charlotte’s Web....................... 26

4.1 Constraints: the rightfulness claim in the social world ........................ 26

4.1.1 The translator and the Source Text author ............................. 27

4.1.2 The translator and the Target Text readers ........................... 29

Chapter Five   Conclusion .....................................51

5.1 The evaluations of the Chinese versions of Charlotte’s Web................................51

5.2 Rethinking the translator’s subjectivity.....................54

5.3 Limitations of the current research and future studies..........................55

Chapter Four  The Translator’s Subjectivity in Light of the TCA on Four Chinese Versions of Charlotte’s Web

4.1 Constraints: the rightfulness claim in the social world

A Translation takes place in certain social and historical background, which requires communication  to  meet  the  demands  in  empirical  world.  A  set  of  general  rules  and normative claims are prescribed to regulate the subject’s action. Under this circumstance, observing  the  rightfulness  claim  is  the  obligatory  task  for  communicative  subjects  to reach consensus. The rightfulness claim asks translators to establish rational interpersonal relationship  in  the  social  world,  developing  inter-subjective  consensus  with  all  other subjects involved. 

In  translation,  there  are  a  number  of  different  subjects,  and  the  position  of  these subjects is equal. Apparently, the role of the translator lies in the center of translation. At first,  the  translator  should  have  a  frank  conversation  with  the  Source  Text  author  to investigate the culture backgrounds and life experience so that the Source Text author’s intention  and  the  meaning  of  the  Source  Text  can  be  acquired.  Secondly,  facing  the Target Text readers, translators build up equal dialogical relations for different readers and strive to  achieve his translation purpose. At last,  in  shaping  the  characters  of  the Source Text, the translator should respect the norms of Target Language, namely interact with  the  patronage,  and  other  translators  for  mutual  understanding.  In  short,  the translator should thoroughly grasp the reciprocal relations in the social world and handle them flexibly in translation. If the translator fails to conduct interactive relationship with the subjects in the social world, the rightfulness claim cannot be reached and it may leads to unacceptable translation.

英语论文参考

Chapter Five Conclusion

5.1The evaluations of the Chinese versions of Charlotte’s Web

In  translating  Charlotte’s  Web,  each  of  the  translator  aims  to  reach  the  validity claims in the “life world”, in order to achieve the mutual understanding with the other subjects in  the translation activity,  including  the  Target  Text  readers,  the  Source  Text author, the patronage, and the other translators. On the one hand, the communications are  the  process  for  translators  to  show  their  subjectivity.  On  the  other  hand,  the translator is constrained by the other subjects in the communications. So the translator’s subjectivity  is  the  combination  of  initiative  and  passivity,  and  the  combinations  are dynamic and various because different communicative actions result in distinctive styles of translations. By means of analyzing and describing the translator’s subjectivity from the perspective of the Theory of Communicative Action in the four Chinese versions of Charlotte’s Web in chapter  four,  here we  present  an  all-around  evaluation  of  the  four versions. 

From  the  analysis  of  the  Target  Text  style,  we  can  evaluate  the  four  versions  as follows. The overall structure of Kang Xin’s version is unabridged. At the phonological Level,  comparing  with  other  versions,  the  number  of  the  calculation  of  interjections, er-suffix is the least, which shows that Kang does not pay much attention to the tone of the sentence. At the lexical level, Kang’s chapter titles are more concise and faithful to the  features  of  the  Source  Text,  some  choices  of  words  in  translation  are  relatively formal, and other content words conform to the corresponding social background and people’s habitual  use. At the syntactic level,  Kang employs many passive sentences in translation.  Kang’s  sentence  structures  are  not  idiomatic  to  some  extent  though  she simplifies the long sentence and uses reiterated words sometimes. At the rhetorical level, the rhetorical devices used in Kang’s version is the most, and Kang often translates the phrases  to  four-character  idioms,  which  makes  her  version  elegant  and  beautiful.  The obvious characteristics of Kang’s version are the words and four-character idioms.

reference(omitted)

如果您有论文代写需求,可以通过下面的方式联系我们
点击联系客服