论文总字数：28029字

摘 要

目的论是由德国著名语言学家、翻译家弗米尔所创立的，该理论认为翻译作为一种具有特定目标、在特定情况下产生的行为，必然也包含任何人类行为所共同具有的某种特定目的。因此，译者在进行翻译时，应先确定其想达到的文本效果，再合理处理原文，确定其该采取的翻译策略。

本文将在目的论的指导下，研究英国作家毛姆的小说《刀锋》的两个中文译本，通过三个层面来分析不同译者在面临相同源文本所采取的翻译方法，对比他们的翻译效果，来判断译文质量的高低。

关键词：目的论；目的原则；《刀锋》

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Literature Review 1

3. A Brief Introduction to The Skopos Theory 2

3.1 The Development of Skopos Theory 2

3.2 The Definition of Skopos Theory 4

4. Comparisons between the Two Chinese Translations from the Perspective of the Skopos Theory 5

4.1 Comparisons on the Word Level.......................................................... .......6

4.2 Comparisons on the Sentence Level 8

4.3 Comparisons on the Translation Strategy Level 10

5. Conclusion 11

Works Cited 13

1. Introduction

William Somerset Maugham (25 January 1874-16 December 1965) is a world- renowned prolific British novelist, short story writer and playwright. Maugham has a keen insight into human nature and is clever at telling stories. In his works, the characters are bright and the plot are unexpected. The Razor’s Edge is the late Maugham’s work, which mainly tells the love story of a bunch of young men and women who took Larry as the center after World War II. It shows the general psychology of the conflict between individual existence and social reality in postwar American society. In 1944, The Razor"s Edge was published and translated into various languages. This paper mainly selects the translations of Zhou Xuliang and Lin Busheng, and analyzes their versions of The Razor"s Edge from the perspective of Skopos Theory. Zhou’s version, which appeared in the 1980s, was an early version of The Razor’s Edge, his language has obvious time feature. Lin Busheng’s translation of The Razor’s Edge, which has appeared in our country in recent years, is more close to the original text than that of Zhou’s, and has been well received by modern readers.

In this thesis, the author tries to answer the following questions: What is Skopos theory? What are the directives of it? What are the differences between the two translations on the level from the perspective of Skopos rule? What are the effects of these differences? What are the limitations between the two translations on the level from the perspective of Skopos rule? What suggestions can be proposed for the future retranslation work of the novel?

2. Literature Review

The Razor’s Edge has many Chinese translations. The first edition is translated by Zhou Xuliang in 1982, Zhou’s translation has been accepted widely for its simplicity and plainness and reprinted several times. As time went on, new historical context calls for a new translation. Target readers in a new historical background expect a translation suiting their own reading habits. Besides, translators in a different historical background certainly decode the original text in a different way. Thus, the need for a new translation is natural, the appearance of it is also necessary. Thus, Lin Busheng published his new Chinese version in 2016 and then it enjoys high levels of approval. By doing the current study, the author aims to find out the advantages and disadvantages of former translations and hopefully shed some lights on the future translation work of the novel.

The author looked through many readers’ on-line comments on both their version. The comments on Zhou’s were quite divided. Some readers thought that Zhou’s translation had a unique flavor and was very idiomatic, while others commented that some expressions in the translation were awkward . At the same time, comments on Lin’s version were one-sided, most readers considered that Lin’s translation too subjective in the portrayal of characters, but also being read fluently, which is appear to be in conflict. Though these on-line comments may lack speciality, they were from common readers, who were the target readers of the translations.

1. A Brief Introduction to The Skopos Theory

3.1 The Development of Skopos Theory

The theory first appeared in an article published by linguist Hans Josef Vermeer in the German Journal Lebende Sprachen, 1978.

Before Skopos Theory was coined by Vermeer in 1978, historical translation theories similar to Vermeer’s theory existed. Three other notable examples of such historical purpose-driven approaches largely revolved around biblical translations. The earliest example said to be found was the approach by Saint Augustine approximately around the third to fourth century. It was said that he spoke of the relation between the roles of the target texts’ reader(s) and the translation style to be used in relation to the Bible. Consequently, he suggested for the Bible to be translated into different styles dependent on the readers in order to help facilitate the different receivers’ reception of the biblical content. A plain and simple translation was produced when it was meant for the ordinary people for the purpose of enlightenment; a more elegant translation style produced for the well-educated; and a more solemn translation produced for the readers as a whole. Saint Jerome, his contemporary and the translator of the Bible for the ordinary people was said to have insisted on the ‘comprehensibility of the target text’ as well. Martin Luther, a German translator, was also noted to have emphasized the comprehensibility of the target text in translations and adopted the ‘regional yet socially broad dialect’ of the ordinary Germans when translating the Bible. Eugene Nida, founder of the dynamic-equivalence Bible Translation Theory, was quoted to have said “When we are asked ‘which translation is superior or better than the other’ we should seek an answer to another question ‘Best for whom?’”

During the time period in which Vermeer’s general Skopos theory was founded, the field of Translation Studies was facing a shift from predominantly more formal and ‘linguistic’ theories, where ‘faithfulness’ and ‘equivalence’ to source text was the greatest criterion with the most authority in determining a translation’s success, to theories holding greater regard for functionality and sociocultural factors. This shift had been motivated by the Communication Theory, Action Theory, Text Linguistics and Text Theory, and the orientation towards Reception Theory in Literary Studies. Thus, Skopos Theory can be considered as an offspring of these said theories. Consequently, Skopos Theory formed in that period, and under the influence of the aforementioned theories, had a functionally and socioculturally oriented framework due to its focus on translation factors that lie between extra-linguistic and textual. Many of the factors it adopted from the Action Theory became essential in the late twentieth century due to the growing demand for non-literary text translations. In such texts, contextual factors surrounding them became essential in their translation particularly, when in relation to the function of the text in that specific culture for the specific reader(s).

Apart from the above elaborated general Skopos Theory, Skopos Theory (as a concept) was later further developed by various academics in the field of translation, distinguishing its development into four stages two of which were combined in a later collaboration of which the beginnings of the modern Skopos Theory could be said to have originated from. Specifically, the combination of the general Skopos Theory and Katharina Reiss’s Functional Category model introduced in their collaborative articles in 1984 and 1991. This combined approach allowed for the extraction of general factors (that affect the translation process) from occurrences found uniquely in individual cultures and/or languages. These aforementioned factors can be consistently linked to and/or from special theories, developing to be more functional and target-oriented.

Under this framework, knowledge of the rationale behind a translation and the function of a target text are paramount for the translator to produce successful translations. Essentially, Skopos Theory rejects equivalence-based translation theories based on their focus on the source text, the purposes of the source text’s author or the effects of a source text on its readers as conclusive determinants in translations. Instead, the Skopos Theory suggests that translations should focus on the target culture and language illustrating the source text, their effects on the reader, and the original author’s purpose as decisive factors, rather than the effects and purposes of the source language.

3.2 The Definition of Skopos Theory

The term Skopos is usually used to refer to the purpose of the translation. The word Skopos derives from the Greek word “Skopos”, which means purpose. Skopos Theory argues that translation is a purposeful action. Translation is a port for exporting local literary works, poetics and ideologies and a port for importing foreign literary works, poetics and ideologies. It is a bridge between the source culture and target culture and a bridge between the original writer and target readers. This bridge is not built with cold cement bricks. Instead, it is built with every decision made by independent translators with their own personal decided by their special education background, language competencies, aesthetic values, perceptions on translation and culture awareness. Even for the same literary work, no two translations can be the same in different forms and to different degrees. If the Skopos theory is not taken into account, the acceptability and intentions of the target language may be neglected. In the framework of Vermeer’s Skopos theory, one of the most important factors determining the purpose of translation is the audience, the recipient of the target text, who have their own cultural background knowledge, expectation of the target text and communicative needs. Each kind of translation points to a certain audience, so translation is a text produced for a certain purpose and target audience in the target language circumstances.

The three main rules of the Skopos Theory are: the Skopos rule, the Coherence rule and the Fidelity rule. Furthermore, the Fidelity rule, is subordinate to the Coherence rule, and the Coherence rule is subordinate to the Skopos rule.

The first rule as the top-ranking of the whole theory thinks that in order to fulfill a translation task, translators must take the purpose of translation into consideration.

The second rule, the Coherence rule requires that the target text should be fluent in the receivers’ circumstances.

The third rule states that there must be coherence between the source text and translated version. This doesn’t mean translators should achieve equivalence in translation, but their translations should be faithful to the original text.

Comparisons between the Two Chinese Translations from the Perspective of Skopos Theory

Different translators may come up with different understandings towards the words and sentences in the source text. Zhou Xuliang and Lin Busheng live in different times, have different life experiences, and have different educational backgrounds. These have resulted in their differences in language habits, but the translations have their own merits.

With their own understandings, they will choose different counterparts to represent the source text. Hence, in this part, the author will dig into the differences between the two translations on the levels of words, sentences and translation strategy. The author put these three levels into this group because by comparing the source text and target text, researchers can actually see how translators have dealt with the words and sentences. Translators’ understanding towards them and their ways of reproducing them are all literally reflected in the target text.

In the two versions of The Razor’s Edge, the author finds that Zhou Xuliang’s translation in favor of Foreignizing Translation and retains the style and English expression of the original text, etc., while Lin Busheng’s version adopts the domesticating translation which makes the readers feel natural as reading a native novel.

4.1 Comparisons on the word level

The following examples are cited to analyze and compare the translator’s choice of words displayed in the two Chinese translations. The author will examine how the Skopos theory is manifested through their choice of words.

E.g.1 ‘Then what do you want to do?’ He gave me his radiant, fascinating smile. ‘Loaf,’ he said.

周译：“那么，你要做什么呢？”他向我来了一下他那明媚迷人的微笑。

“晃膀子，”他说。(Zhou 2012: 50)

林译：“那你想做什么呢？”他扬起容光焕发的笑靥。

“鬼混。”他说道。(Lin 2016: 46)

This is a conversation between Maugham and the main character Larry. Larry was full of anticipation of life before he took part in the war, and in one battle his comrades died trying to save him, after which Larry was lost in thought. When Isabelle and Maugham asked Larry what he thought of his future life, he replied with only a perfunctory word “loaf”.

Zhou Xuliang translated “loaf” as “swaying one’s arm”, which means lay about all day and do nothing and has strong local color. The author thinks that the words “晃膀子” is very vivid. Looking back at the background of the time, America was in a period of “greatness and prosperity”. Larry’s family and friends designed a life path for him, but he only wanted to “loaf” and pursue the peace and freedom he yearned for. In the narrative style of the original book, Maugham advocates to use simple and clear language, even colloquial language, and use storytelling to express his intention easily. Zhou’s translation of “晃膀子” is more in line with the original humorous, slightly sarcastic style, but also show Larry’s cleverness and wisdom of the world incisively and vividly. Although the use of dialects does not conform to the reader’s reading habits, we cannot deny Zhou’s hard work.

Each text is written for a particular purpose and should serve this purpose. Therefore, the Skopos rule requires that translators should translate texts in a way that target readers wants and ensure the text could function in the readers communicative situation. According to this, in the communication purpose of translation, Zhou’s translation retains the original style, obeys the Skopos rule. So the author appreciates Zhou’s translation more.

In contrast, Lin Busheng’s choice of words, which is more acceptable to the reader, but it can not show the overall language style of the original text, and his expressiveness is slightly inferior to that of “晃膀子” and cannot arouse the reader’s interest in reading. The communicative purpose of the translation is not well accomplished.

E.g.2 For men and women are not only themselves; they are also the region in which they were born, the city apartment or the farm in which they learnt to walk, the games they played as children, the old wives’ tales they overheard, the food they ate, the school they attended, the sports they followed, the poets they read, and the God they believed in.

周译：因为人不论男男女女，都不仅仅是他们自身；他们也是自己出生的乡土，学步的农场或城市公寓，儿时玩的游戏，私下听来的山海经，吃的饭食，上的学校，关心的运动，吟哦的诗章，和信仰的上帝。(Zhou 2012: 19)

林译：无论男女，不仅仅是代表自己，更反映出生的地域，是在城市抑或农村学会走路、儿时常玩的游戏、从老一辈听来的传说、习惯的饮食、就读的学校、热衷的运动、阅读的诗篇与信仰的神祇，等等。(Lin 2016: 4)

This sentence is taken from the first section of the first chapter of the novel. In this section, Maugham addressed the readers’ as the writer of the book and provided some information about the reasons of and difficulties in writing this novel. The above sentence is related to Maugham’s fear of writing the lives of Americans as a British writer. In this example, both of the translators omitted the image of “old wives”. Lin instead chose “老一辈” to compensate for this omission, expressing that the tales were handed down several generations. Zhou, resorted to domestication again because he introduced in a Chinese ancient work “山海经”. The classic of Mountains and Seas is a Chinese classic text and a complication of mythic geography and myth. Zhou translated as it to express the meaning of fairy tales but it couldn’t deliver the meaning of passing on from generation to generation. Zhou’s translation didn’t loyal to the original text, he over-translated and being too subjective in this case. Lin’s translation complied with the fidelity rule while Zhou’s not. Therefore, the author thinks Lin’s version is more appropriate.

From another aspect, in the same example, Zhou translated “the god” as “上帝”, though it is well-understood to the readers but it doesn’t in consistent with the words “山海经”. He mixed Chinese culture and Western culture in one sentence together and this action may confuse the readers. Meanwhile, Lin translated “the God” as “神祇”, which is echoed the contents of the previous text (老一辈). It is very apparent that in translating this sentence, Zhou disobey the coherence rule. The author finds Lin’s translation preferable to Zhou’s.

4.2 Comparisons on the Sentence Level

1. g.3 He would put up with any affront, he would ignore any rebuff, he would swallow any rudeness to get asked to a party he wanted to go to or to make a connection with some crusty old dowager of great name.

周译：哪一家请客，他想跻身被请之列，或是哪一位大名鼎鼎、但是有名难缠的老阔寡妇，他想拉拢点关系，就什么都做得出来：钉子照碰，冷言冷语照吃，下不了面子的地方照下得去。(Zhou 2012: 22)

林译：他甘愿吞下他人侮辱，无视严词批评，忍受无理待遇，只为了受邀至他想参与的宴会，或结识某王公贵族的年迈遗孀。(Lin 2016: 8)

In this long sentence, the writer repeated “he would” for three times to show that Elliott was willing to do anything as long as long he could enlarge his social circle. The repetition of “he would” structure is of similar length, making it forceful and expressive. After the three “he would”, the writer used two adverbials of purposes. Zhou took initiative to put the two adverbials of purposes at the beginning, which is a sign of the influence of Chinese. In Chinese, adverbials, especially adverbials of purposes, places and time are prone to be put ahead of the main verbs they modify. Such a relocation of the adverbials of purposes indicates Zhou comply with the objective target language habits. Under this circumstance, Lin translated this sentence in sequence, which is an application of linear translation.

Zhou, however, first of all added “就什么都做得出” to sum up the following contents, cut up the sentence here and regarded the following contents as examples. The three “he would” structures are of similar length, while in Zhou’s translation the three “he would” structures are transferred into three word clusters respectively with four, six and twelve characters. Obviously, Zhou used the increase of words to achieve momentum.

In this example, it can be seen that both translator take the differences between the source language habits and target language habits into considerations. In addition, Lin tried to represent the original writing order by using a similar one, while Zhou dismissed the writer’s style and created a new style to compensate. Their translations are different, but it can be seen that both of them exerted their subjectivity to either reproduce the original style or create a new style with similar effects. Translation should be able to function in the context and culture of the target language in the way expected by the recipient of the target language, to this point, both Zhou and Lin followed the Skopos rule.

E.g.4 His business connections with the impecunious great both in France and in England had secured the foothold he had obtained on his arrival in Europe as a young man with letters of introduction to persons of consequence.

周译：他初到欧洲时，还是个拿着介绍信去见名流的年轻人，后来和英国、法国那些中落的大家发生商业关系，这就奠定了他先前取得的社会地位。（Zhou 2012: 27）

林译 ：当年他年纪轻轻，就携着推荐函初抵欧洲，会见许多有头有脸的人士，取得社交界一席之地，如今与英法的没落贵族在生意上又有往来，更巩固了自身地位。（Lin 2016: 8）

This example describes that Eliot was just a poor young boy at first, then he make great efforts to enter the upper class. For the long sentence of the source text, the two translators both pay attention to the difference between English and Chinese, and make use of this difference to separate the English long sentence into Chinese short sentences. It is worthwhile to note that Zhou’s translation put the adverbial of time “on his arrival in Europe” at the beginning of the sentence, thus reducing the burden on the whole sentence. In addition, the whole sentence is connected with the logical supplementary words of “初到” and “后来”, which is more in line with the logical narration of the source language, so Zhou’s translation is more readable. By contrast, Lin’s translated sentences are too long and have little relevance between sentences. English and Chinese are very different in grammatical structure, which requires us to change the order of the original words in the process of translation. The author holds that Lin’s translation method is incompatible with the comprehensibility of the original text and runs counter to the principle of coherence rule in the translation of the target text.

4.3 Comparisons on the Translation Strategy Level

E.g.5 ‘Do you speak from your experience?’

‘From the experience of a stormy past. When I suffered from the pangs of unrequited love I immediately got on an ocean liner.’

周译：“这是你的经验之谈吗？”

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：28029字