论文总字数：29370字

摘 要

本文的研究是基于文化导向的翻译理论。自二十世纪初以来，林纾的翻译引发了国内外众多的讨论，译者因翻译作品时大量删减和中国化而出名,但研究者很少注重探究林纾作品背后的文化因素,据我所知,从林纾的改良主义和文化语境的角度的研究更为少见。通过对林纾翻译查尔斯和玛丽.兰姆的《莎士比亚故事集》改名《吟边燕语》的作品分析，本文提出了新的阅读方法,那便是从目的语文化语境角度解读作品。

本文重在阐释，旨在表明翻译不仅仅是语言方面的努力，更是处于特定历史事件中的活动, 所以最终应基于这样的语境评判和理解翻译作品。

关键词：目的语文化导向翻译理论； 《吟边燕语》；改良主义；语境

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Literature Review 1

3. Theoretical Basis 2

3.1 Translators" main goals 3

3. 2 The role and function of translation 4

3.3 Translation strategies 4

4. Characteristics of Lin Shu"s Translated Works from English to Chinese 5

4.1 Rewriting and creation 5

4.2 Omission 7

4.3 Classical Chinese 8

5. Case Study: Yinbian yanyu From the Perspective of History and Target Culture 10

5.1 Translation as an instrument for reform 10

5.2 Penetration of traditional beliefs 11

5.23 Penetration of western elements 11

6. Conclusion 12

Works Cited 13

1. Introduction

Lin Shu (alias Lin Qinnan, 1852-1924) is quite known for his translated works of Western literary works into classical Chinese. Yet his translated works have long been belittled as “unfaithful” by subsequent scholars who focus on original text rather than the target culture. Lin Shu’s translated works influenced in changing the traditional Chinese perception of seeing western culture as “low” art, but also gave great inspiration to Chinese writers and reformers in he May Fourth period. The thesis is related with both the study of Lin Shu’s translation and contemporary translation studies.

Lin Shu did his translated works without basic knowledge of foreign languages. He collaborated with his friends who had first-hand knowledge of foreign languages and orally relayed the original to him. As stated, he used a rather unique approach to translation. Therefore, translators and critics from both Chinese and foreign have criticized his works for sinicizations. This is because most of translators today follow the principles of translation as “faithfulness” and “equivalence”, which emphasizes that the target language (TL) have to be truthful to the source language (SL). It can be confirmed that Lin Shu preferred readers’ reception to linguistic equivalence. Therefore, in order to adequately recognize Lin Shu’s achievements in translating and transforming culture in China’s modernity, it’s insufficient to judge them from a narrow linguistic analysis. Giving that reason, I will study Lin’s translated works from the perspective of target culture and reception. The approach adopted in the paper is significant. Firstly it introduces a theoretical framework that precisely targets the cultural surroundings which contributes to more balanced judgment and evaluation of Lin Shu’s translated works. Secondly, it presents new findings by studying the case of Lin Shu’s contemporary translation theory.

2. Literature Review

Since target/culture-oriented translation theories attach importance to the role, function, influence and significance of the translation in the target culture, it is necessary to examine scholars’ judegements to Lin Shu’s translations since he first began his translation in 1899. Kang Youwei also praised Lin Shu: “ The two talents for translation in the world are Yan Fu and Lin Shu.”(Aying 26) Guo Moruo admitted that Lin Shu’s translated novels had a decisive influence on his literary inclination (Han 43), which paid more attention to the impact of Lin Shu’s translation on a reader. However, Liu Bannong claimed that Lin Shu’s literary translations could only be seen as “lighting readings” rather than literary works.(Xue, Zhang 149) In Mr Lin Qinnan, Zhen Zhengduo articulated that Lin Shu’ conservative view should not be the reasons for neglecting his contributions and influence in literary translation and writing. He stated that most of Lin Shu’s translated works were loyal to the originals’ spirit and genres. It gave a relatively fair judgment of Lin Shu

Qian Zhongshu’s Lin Shu’s Translation initiated the reassessing of Lin Shu and his translated works, which is the most important criticism on Lin Shu’s translated works since 1949. He maintained that a translation should be faithful to the original, but it should not read like a translation. (Qian 9) However, it’s an ideal. Hence, Qian also admitted that it is inevitable that infidelity occurs in a translated work. (Qian 18-20) In Qian Zhongshu’s opinion, Lin Shu’s “target language” is sometimes better than the original author’s “source language”. Though he touched on some principal translational facts, e.g., the creativity of a translator, a reader’s preference for the translation to be original ,a better use of a the target language than that of the source language and so on, he did not study them in terms of cultural translation.

3. Theoretical Basis

This study is informed by translation theories that can offer an insight into the translational phenomenon of Lin Shu. The aim is to reevaluate Lin Shu’s translated works. It will make comprehensive use of target-oriented translation theories as a basic theoretical framework for evaluation. The thesis is studied through target-oriented and culture-oriented translation theories. The current dominant evaluation of Lin Shu’s translated works is mainly based on various linguistic criticisms; therefore, it’s inevitable to avoid negative attitudes towards Lin’s translated works. While target-oriented/culture-oriented translation theories offer a theoretical base for reevaluating Lin’s translated works on the basis of another framework.

Toury is the main proponent of the target-oriented descriptive translation theory according to his major works, Translation Norms and Literary Translation into Hebrew, In Search of a Theory of Translation, and Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. It is evident that Toury see orients towards the target text, readers and culture. Gideon Toury’s target-oriented translation theories are highly applicable to Lin Shu’s case, to explain the translational cases of Lin Shu. Toury argues that translators’ main goal is to achieve acceptable translated works in target culture. They do not work in ideal or abstract situations nor desire to be innocent but have conveyed their own literary and cultural interests, hoping that their works to be favored by another culture. Thus they manipulate the source text to inform and conform to existing cultural constraints.

3.1 Translators’ main goals

Toury clearly states that the main goal of the translators is to have their translated works accepted in the target culture, but they are not indifferent to the source text (Toury 137) in In Search of a Theory of Translation. It is hard to find examples of translation “inadequate” in the target culture; so is the examples of translation that are full of linguistic equivalent to ST. In his works, Toury intensifies his target-oriented position on translation. He believes that target culture factually governs the shape of the target product, for after all, the translated works aim to meet certain needs in the target cultural environment, and “translated works are indeed intended to cater for the needs of a target culture.” (Toury 28). Therefore, the translators have to take the cultural needs into consideration while translating: “Translators may be said to operate first and foremost in the interest of the culture into which they are translating, however they conceive of that interest.” (Toury 16)

Through Toury’s field study, stated in “The History of Literary Translation into Hebrew”, Toury believes that most source texts are chosen for ideological reasons rather than linguistic and aesthetic reasons. In other words, linguistics and aesthetics play a very small role in the process of translation.

3. 2 The role and function of translation

Toury states that he focuses his study on the position and function of translating as a kind of activity in a target-cultural prospective, and accordingly, he offers a definition of the term “target-oriented”: translations have been regarded as facts of the culture which hosts them, with the communist assumption that whatever their function and identity, these are constituted within that same culture and reflect its own constellation. To be sure, it was by virtue of such a methodical starting point that this approach to the study of translated works and translating in their immediate contexts earned the nickname of “target-oriented”.

In a detailed discussion of the role and function of translation. Toury values the cultural impact on translation, holding that the activities and products of translation can cause changes in target culture, yet he argues that cultures resort to translating in filling the gaps, whenever and wherever such gaps manifest themselves. (Toury 27)

3.3 Translation strategies

Toury says, “At any rate, translators performing under different conditions (e.g., translating texts of different kinds, and/or for different audiences) often adopt different strategies and ultimately come up with markedly different products.” (Toury 54) In his views, translators’ different stances in the source norms or the target norms lead to their different pursuits for the product, because “adherence to source norms determines a translation’s adequacy as compared to the source text, subscription to norms originating in the target culture determines its acceptability. ” (Toury 56-57) It is obvious that Toury pays high attention to “acceptability” and regards it as the basis of translation strategies and methods adopted by the translators. As a result, it is necessary for translators to modify even delete certain features of the ST so as to have the TT accepted in the target culture.

It is believed that Toury’s theory can be applied to examine Lin Shu’s translation from a new perspective to turn critical interest to the relations between Lin Shu and the target cultural context, influence, reception and significance of Lin’s translation rather than the truthfulness to the ST. Certainly, it is of great significance to rejudging Lin Shu as a translator and his translated works. However, Toury’s theory only partly illuminates the translation phenomenon of Lin Shu, namely, that the target culture dominated Lin’s original intention and his translation process and that Lin Shu values making his translated works acceptable to the reading mass and target culture. He seems to only lay emphasis on the norms for translation, which socially and culturally refine translators’ choice and strategies. Yet he rarely discusses the issue that how the translator influences the target culture. The target culture embodied two different aspects in the period of transition from the late Qing to the early republic: the traditional culture and a newly emerging culture. Therefore the question is how did Lin Shu fit his translated works within the two cultures? How did the translated works influence or change the target culture? Toury"s theory is insufficient to explain them. The argument in the article is that particular stress is laid on explaining how translated works create opportunities for cultural acceptance, resistance, innovation and change through studying the particular translation Tales from Shakespeare. Therefore, I introduce the cultural translation method as complement in the thesis.

4. Characteristics of Lin Shu"s Translated Works from English to Chinese

With regards to the content, spirit and style, Lin Shu’s translated works are mostly loyal to the originals, but he often made adaptations of the originals particularly in order to meet the needs of the target culture and the acceptance of the readers. Lin Shu’s adaptation of the source text, including creation, omission, addition is feasible and more acceptable based on the target/culture-oriented theories, and his works are worth affirming and exploring. In the chapter, I examine how Lin Shu dealt the ST for the sake of the Chinese culture and readers from three aspects through a comparative analysis of the ST and the TT.

4.1 Rewriting and creation

Lin Shu valued the target culture and the readers rather than faithfulness to the words and language of the original. For this reason, he made changes to the originals. As Bassnett and Lefevere state, translation is a rewriting of the original text: (1) rewriting reflects a certain ideology. (2) rewriting in its positive aspect, helps in the evolution of literature and a society. (3) rewriting introduces new concepts, new genres and new devices. (Lefevere xi) In Translation and Creation, Pollard concludes that “ if the purpose of the novel is to move the readers’ feeling, and the readers cannot relate to it, then it fails in its purpose. And the logic applies to translation as much as to creation.” (Pollard 12-13) In this sense, Lin Shu’s translation is rewriting and creation.

For example, it’s common that Lin Shu changed the names of English novels and created new ones, such as Stowe’s Uncle Tom "s Cabin (《汤姆叔叔的小屋》) , Lin Shu translated as 《黑奴吁天录》, Charles Dickens’ The Old Curiosity Shop (《老古玩店》) , Lin Shu renamed as 《孝女奈儿传》, Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe (《艾凡赫》) , Lin translated as 《撒克逊劫后

英雄略》.

Also In Yinbian yanyu, Lin Shu created twenty new titles according to the originals. A comparison of the two versions is shown as the form.

This reveals Lin Shu’s conscious orientation to the target culture and readers.

4.2 Omission

In literary translation, omission is a common practice, and sometimes is a strategy that a translator adopts for such reasons as the needs of the target culture, the acceptance of the readers,current social, political or historical conditions or the lengthiness and untranslatability of the original text. Besides, the original text may not be flawless, and the translator may make adaptations or omissions of the original to correct any perceived errors or to overcome cultural default in the original. In terms of literary translation, what is transparent to the SL readers is often opaque to the TL readers without relevant cultural background knowledge and will undoubtedly perplex the TL readers thereby damaging the translational effect. In order to solve the problem of the cultural default, Lin Shu used omission as one of his translation strategies from time to time. In the first chapter of David Copperfield, the description of “a caul” is an example. The notion of caul makes it difficult for the Chinese readers with little or no knowledge of English culture to understand the coherent cultural implications. I believe that Lin Shu and his collaborator did not understand the notion themselves. The omission avoids causing the reader’s perplexity so as to make his translation more understandable and acceptable. In Yinbian yanyu, there are a lot of examples of omission, e.g.:

Text 1

The capon burns,and the pig falls from the spit,and the meat will be all cold if you do not come home. (Lambs 187)

Text 2

Luanwu: 肴核且冷，请即归。 (Lin 16)

Lin Shu omitted specific chicken and meat. And Lin Shu repeatedly omitted or downplayed many details of “Gods” in Lambs’ book in order to dilute the characteristic of the story, e.g.:

Text 1

Where they were stopped by the strange appearance of three figures like women,except that they had beards and their withered skins and wild attire made them look not like any earthly creatures．Macbeth first addressed them, when they seemingly offended, laid each one her choppy finger upon her skinny lips, in token of silence; (Lambs 10)

Text 2

忽见女巫三人款款自远而迎。(Lin 6)

Though “It is true to omit the plot of the original’s is the main shortcoming of his translated works, but the objective as Lin Shu excised is often not the original basic content and plot but what he believes that is redundant or may cause failure in understanding irrelevant European notions in the original for Chinese readers. Because of this, in spite of the shortcomings of the much excision while translating, there is no great damage to the basic style.” (Zhang 83) In short, Lin Shu’s intentional omissions were mainly based on his consideration for his target readers.

4.3 Classical Chinese

Classical Chinese writing lays particular stress on the combination of formal beauty but pays little attention to grammatical structure, unlike western language ruled by morphology, syntax and tense. As a result, in traditional Chinese literature, classical Chinese is most often used in the writing of lyrical proses or essays while vernacular Chinese was more often used in the writing of novels. In this sense, it seems that classical Chinese is not suitable for detailed description. Nevertheless, Lin Shu was the first person who succeeded in applying classical Chinese into the translation of English novels. As Lin Shu used classical Chinese in the translated works, he tried to bridge the gap between classical Chinese and western literary language. On one hand, he extended the narrative function of classical Chinese to adapt itself to a realistic description. On the other hand, he tried to make his translation more succinct than the original by simplification to cater for the habit of Chinese readers. E.g., in chapter one of David Copperfield, Dickens gave a detailed description of the doctor who came to deliver a child, while in the Chinese version “医生平惋不忤人，生不叱狗。” (Lin 7), Lin Shu translated the 126 English words with only 11 characters, without losing the spirit of the original. It shows the difference between Western literary writing and classical Chinese writing and their respective features. And in Lin Shu’s version, Roujuan shows Lin Shu’s proficiency of classical Chinese.

Text 1

Shylock, the Jew, lived at Venice: he was an usurer, who had amassed an immense fortune by lending money at great interest to Christian merchants. Shylock, being a hard- hearted man, exacted the payment of the money he lent with such severity that he was much disliked by all good men, and particularly by Antonio, a young merchant of Venice; and Shylock as much hated Antonio, because he used to lend money to people in distress, and would never take any interest for the money he lent; therefore there was great enmity between this covetous Jew and the generous merchant Antonio. (Lambs 2)

Text 2

歇洛克者，犹太硕腹贾也，恒用母金取子，以居积得橐金无数。然如期要索，未尝假借，人多恨之。仇家曰安东尼，罗马人，与歇同客于微臬司。其人侠好友，有通缓急者，必释子金勿问。歇洛克以为相形以败其业，憎之次骨。(Lin 3)

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：29370字