本文關鍵詞：《三國演義》回目及回評翻譯的闡釋學研究　出處：《長沙理工大學》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關文章： 闡釋學 理解的歷史性 《三國演義》譯本 回目及回評比較

【摘要】：中國古籍是中國傳統(tǒng)思想文化的結(jié)晶，在思想內(nèi)容、語言形式、文化意蘊等方面都有不同于現(xiàn)代作品的特點。一般的翻譯需要溝通兩種不同語言、文化和受眾，而典籍作品還需跨越時間。中國四大名著之一的《三國演義》作為典籍，被研究的較少。僅有的一些文章也多是探討羅慕士譯本一些顯而易見的問題：如量詞、長度詞的翻譯等。鄧羅的翻譯因本身缺陷較多更受冷落。然鄧羅譯本在忠實度上雖遠不及羅慕士譯本，卻正是在它的參照下，才有了備受推崇的羅慕士譯本。 作者將從闡釋學角度出發(fā)，從語言、文化、思維等方面比較鄧羅和羅慕士對《三國演義》回目及回評的翻譯。結(jié)合闡釋學理論探究兩譯者為何同中有異異中有同：羅慕士對《三國演義》的前理解受鄧羅翻譯的影響，所以異中有同；羅慕士對《三國演義》的前理解又因其主觀性和所處的歷史時代影響，所以同中有異。由此推斷出譯者對原著理解的歷史性和主觀性以及新的《三國演義》翻譯版本產(chǎn)生的可能性。本文通過以下幾部分來闡述作者的觀點： 引言部分扼要介紹研究背景，研究意義，文章的基本結(jié)構以及文獻綜述，指出《三國》翻譯研究存在的問題及該對比研究的必要。 第一部分簡要介紹《三國演義》及其譯本以及它們的生成文化環(huán)境，對鄧羅和羅慕士兩譯者的翻譯目的和手法進行演推，為第三部分的詳細分析打下基礎。 第二部分是理論基礎部分，闡述闡釋學的主要思想及其在翻譯中的應用。這部分主要闡述譯者主觀能動性在翻譯中對譯者翻譯目的及翻譯方法確定的影響。 第三部分比較羅慕士和鄧羅對回目和回評的翻譯，分析異同，從闡釋學角度闡述譯者主體性的發(fā)揮，以實例說明兩者之間目的和方法上的差異，由此照應上文：譯者所處文化在翻譯過程的影響，以及譯者主觀能動性的發(fā)揮。 結(jié)論部分對全文主題進行歸納總結(jié)：由于理解的歷史性，人們對文本的解釋是多元的，在不同的時空、不同的視角下會產(chǎn)生不同的誤讀和偏見。理解是源語文本的過去視域與理解者由偏見（先結(jié)構）構成的現(xiàn)在視域的一種融合，這一過程給譯者帶來主動性、開放性與創(chuàng)造性。譯者的文化背景及文化觀是影響翻譯的一個重要因素。它會直接影響譯者翻譯方法的選擇，對文中內(nèi)容的處理，尤其是體現(xiàn)文化內(nèi)涵的詞句。因此，，在翻譯過程中，譯者不可避免地會對文本進行創(chuàng)造性闡釋。由于理解歷史性的緣故，隨著歷史的進程，后來者會在前人認識的基礎上及自己的知識文化水平影響下，不斷改變自己的視界，產(chǎn)生新的更合理的解讀。
[Abstract]:Ancient Chinese books are the crystallization of Chinese traditional ideology and culture. They are different from modern works in terms of ideological content, language form and cultural implication. General translation requires communication between two different languages, cultures and audiences. The Romance of the three Kingdoms, one of the four famous works of China, has been studied less. Only a few articles are devoted to exploring some obvious problems in Romance's translation: such as quantifiers. The translation of length words and so on. Dunro's translation is more and more neglected because of its own defects. However, although Dunro's translation is far less faithful than that of Romance, it is under its reference that Dunro has a highly respected Romulus translation. The author will proceed from the perspective of hermeneutics, from the perspective of language and culture. This paper compares Dunro's translation of Romance of the three Kingdoms with that of Romance of the three Kingdoms from the perspective of thinking. In the light of hermeneutical theory, this paper explores why there are differences and differences between the two translators:. Romance's understanding of the Romance of the three Kingdoms is influenced by Dunro's translation. So the difference has the same; Romance's former understanding of the Romance of the three Kingdoms was influenced by its subjectivity and the historical era in which it lived. Therefore, there are differences between them. The author inferred the historical and subjectivity of the translator's understanding of the original works and the possibility of the new translation version of the Romance of the three Kingdoms. This paper expounds the author's views in the following sections: The introduction briefly introduces the research background, significance, basic structure and literature review, and points out the problems in translation studies and the necessity of the contrastive study. The first part briefly introduces the Romance of the three Kingdoms and their translations and their cultural environment, and deduces the translation purposes and techniques of the translators Dunrou and Romusz, thus laying a foundation for the detailed analysis of the third part. The second part is the theoretical basis, which describes the main ideas of hermeneutics and its application in translation. The third part compares Romance and Dunro's translation of the review and review, analyzes the similarities and differences, expounds the exertion of the translator's subjectivity from the perspective of hermeneutics, and illustrates the differences in purpose and method between the two. The influence of the translator's culture in the process of translation and the exertion of the translator's initiative. The conclusion part summarizes the theme of the full text: because of the historical understanding, people's interpretation of the text is diverse, in different time and space. Different perspectives will produce different misreading and prejudice. Understanding is a fusion of the past horizon of the source language text and the present horizon composed of prejudice (prestructure), which brings initiative to the translator. Openness and creativity, the translator's cultural background and cultural outlook, are important factors affecting translation, which will directly affect the translator's choice of translation methods and the treatment of the content in the text. Therefore, in the process of translation, the translator will inevitably interpret the text creatively. As a result of the historical understanding, with the development of history. Under the influence of their knowledge and culture, the latecomers will constantly change their horizons and produce new and more reasonable interpretations.
【學位授予單位】：長沙理工大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：H059;I046

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前9條

1 曾曉光;;試論羅慕士譯《三國演義》對“數(shù)合”的翻譯及問題[J];西華大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2007年02期

2 陳曉莉;張志全;;《三國演義》兩個英譯本中回目的翻譯[J];重慶大學學報(社會科學版);2011年04期

3 張浩然;《三國演義》羅譯本評析[J];福建外語;2001年01期

4 張煜;田翠蕓;;從《三國演義》英譯本看譯者的創(chuàng)造性[J];河北理工大學學報(社會科學版);2007年02期

5 曾曉光;;羅慕士譯《三國演義》對長度詞的英譯及問題[J];河北科技師范學院學報(社會科學版);2008年01期

6 王麗娜;杜維沫;;《三國演義》的外文譯文[J];明清小說研究;2006年04期

7 張浩然,張錫九;論《三國演義》羅譯本中關于文化內(nèi)容的翻譯手法[J];上海大學學報(社會科學版);2002年05期

8 張曉紅,馮奇;從《三國演義》回目的翻譯看文學作品中文化意義的轉(zhuǎn)換[J];上海大學學報(社會科學版);2005年06期

9 駱海輝;姜葵;;《三國演義》羅譯本的罵詞翻譯研究——以目的論為觀照[J];漳州師范學院學報(哲學社會科學版);2010年03期

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 張建麗;《三國演義》章回標題翻譯之順應性研究[D];哈爾濱工程大學;2008年

本文編號：1384700