發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-08 08:05

  本文選題：創(chuàng)造性叛逆　切入點(diǎn)：葛浩文　出處：《安徽大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：翻譯是語(yǔ)言之間的轉(zhuǎn)換,是不同文化之間進(jìn)行信息交流的途徑。在翻譯的過程中必然會(huì)面臨著語(yǔ)言差異和文化差異,而處理這些跨語(yǔ)言的信息時(shí),不可避免地會(huì)出現(xiàn)不同程度上的信息缺失、添加和扭曲。對(duì)此,法國(guó)文學(xué)社會(huì)學(xué)家埃斯卡皮提出了"創(chuàng)造性叛逆"的理論,認(rèn)為翻譯就是創(chuàng)造性叛逆。傳統(tǒng)的翻譯研究視譯者為叛徒,他們的價(jià)值往往會(huì)被否定。但是,創(chuàng)造性叛逆理論對(duì)譯者的文學(xué)翻譯事業(yè)給予了認(rèn)可,肯定了譯作的文學(xué)價(jià)值。該理論讓譯者從譯作背后走出來(lái),從"無(wú)形的"角色變?yōu)?有形的"。譯者獲得了與原作者和讀者平等對(duì)話的權(quán)力,這為重新審視文學(xué)翻譯的本質(zhì)和任務(wù)以及譯者主體性提供了一個(gè)新視角。一個(gè)認(rèn)真負(fù)責(zé)的譯者,主觀上會(huì)努力追求盡可能百分之百地忠實(shí)原文,將原文信息還原于譯作中,但客觀上這是不可能實(shí)現(xiàn)的,譯文與原文之間必定存在著差距,而這個(gè)差距注定了翻譯中必然存在"創(chuàng)造性叛逆"。"創(chuàng)造性叛逆"理論承認(rèn)了譯文與原文之間不可消除的差異,關(guān)注的是翻譯在譯入語(yǔ)中的地位、傳播、作用、影響、意義等問題,論證了翻譯文學(xué)的性質(zhì)和歸屬,使研究者的關(guān)注重心從源語(yǔ)文化轉(zhuǎn)向譯語(yǔ)文化。1990年,Howard Goldblatt(葛浩文)翻譯白先勇的《孽子》并出版。葛浩文對(duì)原著進(jìn)行了創(chuàng)造性地變通,為譯文贏得了一大批英語(yǔ)讀者。在中文原著里,白先勇使用了大量結(jié)構(gòu)特殊的詞(如疊詞)和文化負(fù)載詞(如成語(yǔ))等,這也是該小說的最鮮明和最具代表性的特點(diǎn)之一。葛浩文在譯文中翻譯和重組這些詞或詞組,其方式可以充分體現(xiàn)出他的翻譯思想、策略以及具體方法。因此,本文作者更多關(guān)注的是譯者在詞匯翻譯上表現(xiàn)出來(lái)的創(chuàng)造性叛逆。本文通過對(duì)小說《孽子》與其英譯本的對(duì)比分析,探索了譯者對(duì)原文詞匯翻譯(主要為疊詞、擬聲詞、稱謂和俗語(yǔ)四個(gè)方面)過程中表現(xiàn)出的創(chuàng)造性叛逆(包括個(gè)性化翻譯、節(jié)譯和編譯)。論文檢驗(yàn)了創(chuàng)造性叛逆理論對(duì)于《孽子》英譯本的解釋力,證實(shí)了文學(xué)翻譯過程中創(chuàng)造性叛逆出現(xiàn)的必然性和價(jià)值。研究發(fā)現(xiàn),譯者葛浩文在處理這些詞語(yǔ)或詞組時(shí),靈活結(jié)合了意譯、直譯、音譯、刪減和增添等方法,創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)更為自然通順的英譯本。同時(shí),通過分析《孽子》的翻譯,本研究對(duì)中國(guó)文學(xué)英譯過程中可采用的有效策略和方法進(jìn)行了反思,對(duì)譯者、原作者和原文本都提出了一定的看法與建議,希望為未來(lái)的文學(xué)翻譯及研究提供一定的指導(dǎo),為中國(guó)文學(xué)走出去有所啟示。
[Abstract]:Translation is a way to exchange information between different cultures. In the process of translation, it is bound to be faced with linguistic and cultural differences, and when dealing with these cross-linguistic information, Inevitably there will be varying degrees of information loss, addition and distortion. In response to this, the French literary sociologist Eskapi put forward the theory of "creative treason". Translation is regarded as creative treason. Traditional translation studies regard translators as traitors, and their value is often denied. However, the theory of creative treason has recognized the translators' literary translation career. It affirms the literary value of the translation. This theory makes the translator come out from the "invisible" role to the "tangible" role. The translator gains the right to dialogue with the original author and the reader on an equal footing. This provides a new perspective for re-examining the nature and task of literary translation and the subjectivity of the translator. A conscientious and responsible translator will, subjectively, strive to be as faithful as possible to the original text and restore the original information to the translation. But objectively this is impossible to achieve, and there must be a gap between the target text and the original text, and this gap is bound to lead to the existence of "creative treason" in translation. The theory of "creative treason" acknowledges the indelible difference between the target text and the original text. Focusing on the status, communication, function, influence and meaning of translation in the target language, this paper demonstrates the nature and ownership of translation literature. In 1990, Howard Goldblattt translated and published Bai Xianyong's "son of evil". Bai Xianyong used a large number of words with special structure (such as reduplicates) and culture-loaded words (such as idioms) in the original Chinese works. This is also one of the most distinctive and representative features of the novel. In translating and reorganizing these words and phrases in the translation, the way in which he translates and reorganizes these words and phrases can fully reflect his translation thoughts, strategies and specific methods. The author pays more attention to the creative rebellion of the translator in lexical translation. Through the contrastive analysis of the novel "Nie Zi" and its English translation, the author explores the translator's translation of the original words (mainly repetition words, onomatopoeia words). There are four aspects of creative treason in the process of appellation and colloquial expressions (including individualized translation, economization and translation). This paper examines the explanatory power of the theory of creative treason in the English translation of Nie Zi. This paper proves the inevitability and value of the emergence of creative treason in literary translation. It is found that the translator, in dealing with these words or phrases, flexibly combines the methods of free translation, literal translation, transliteration, deletion and addition. At the same time, through the analysis of the translation of Nie Zi, the present study reflects on the effective strategies and methods that can be used in the process of translating Chinese literature into English. Both the original author and the original text have put forward certain views and suggestions, hoping to provide some guidance for future literary translation and research, and enlighten Chinese literature to go abroad.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H315.9;I046

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 高莎;;文學(xué)翻譯中譯者的創(chuàng)造性叛逆及其限度[J];北京印刷學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

2 高國(guó)慶;;論“創(chuàng)造性叛逆”在文學(xué)翻譯中的價(jià)值性[J];時(shí)代文學(xué)(下半月);2008年11期

3 朱德紅;;“創(chuàng)造性叛逆”對(duì)描述翻譯研究的肯定和背離[J];西昌學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年02期

4 于雪坤;吳自選;;再思文學(xué)翻譯的“創(chuàng)造性叛逆”[J];山西廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年05期

5 趙靜;郝芹;;從譯者的身份看創(chuàng)造性叛逆[J];安徽文學(xué)(下半月);2009年07期

6 于建華;;對(duì)文學(xué)翻譯中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆的探討[J];現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)信息;2009年07期

7 邵愛琴;;從《David Copperfield》兩種中譯本的比較看文學(xué)翻譯中的再創(chuàng)造性叛逆[J];瘋狂英語(yǔ)(教師版);2009年02期

8 吳仙仙;邵東芹;;關(guān)于文學(xué)翻譯中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[J];科技信息;2009年33期

9 王超;;從《羅密歐與朱麗葉》中譯本看文學(xué)翻譯中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[J];湖北第二師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

10 呂兆芳;周曉鳳;;淺議文學(xué)翻譯中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[J];商丘職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉小剛;創(chuàng)造性叛逆：概念、理論與歷史描述[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 周文娟;解讀譯者的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[D];上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué);2008年

2 澈力木格;文學(xué)翻譯中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[D];西北民族大學(xué);2007年

3 龍艷秋;論《豐乳肥臀》葛浩文譯本中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[D];西南交通大學(xué);2015年

4 朱倩茹;論毛澤東詩(shī)詞英譯本中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[D];西南交通大學(xué);2014年

5 滕雅蕓;論文學(xué)翻譯中譯者的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[D];浙江師范大學(xué);2015年

6 卿志軍;創(chuàng)造性叛逆視角下傅東華《飄》譯本研究[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2015年

7 方亞運(yùn);從改寫理論看葛浩文《酒國(guó)》英譯中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆[D];浙江工商大學(xué);2015年

8 蔣娜;《與小姨同游》第1-7章漢譯實(shí)踐報(bào)告[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2015年

9 賈廣林;中國(guó)現(xiàn)代散文英譯中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆研究[D];西安工業(yè)大學(xué);2013年

10 鄧冰;文學(xué)翻譯中的創(chuàng)造性叛逆研究[D];沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：1583058