發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-31 16:29

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 后殖民理論 后殖民翻譯研究 東方主義 殖民話語(yǔ) 印度文化 《印度之行》　出處：《華東師范大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：后殖民理論關(guān)注文化地位的差異,文化之間的權(quán)力斗爭(zhēng)以及一系列關(guān)于文化和權(quán)力差異的問題,如種族歧視,文化帝國(guó)主義,文化身份等。后殖民翻譯研究發(fā)軔于20世紀(jì)80年代中后期,源自后殖民理論,承襲了后殖民批評(píng)中的文化政治批評(píng)話語(yǔ)。在后殖民語(yǔ)境下,翻譯不再是一個(gè)客觀地實(shí)現(xiàn)文本間語(yǔ)義對(duì)等的純語(yǔ)言過程。后殖民翻譯研究跳出傳統(tǒng)翻譯研究的藩籬,否定了傳統(tǒng)譯論中關(guān)于語(yǔ)言文化平等的烏托邦理論假設(shè),開始探討譯本對(duì)目的語(yǔ)文化的顛覆作用以及影響譯本生成的外部制約因素,如意識(shí)形態(tài),權(quán)力差異,政治文化沖突等。后殖民翻譯研究關(guān)注不同民族,不同語(yǔ)言文化之間的不平等權(quán)力關(guān)系,并指出翻譯在很多方面已淪為殖民工具,但是同時(shí)翻譯已被用于,也應(yīng)該被用于顛覆殖民統(tǒng)治,反抗后殖民權(quán)力。譯者作為影響譯作產(chǎn)生的關(guān)鍵因素,在后殖民語(yǔ)境下扮演著不同的角色,是毫無抵抗地直接接受了殖民話語(yǔ),延續(xù)了殖民主義,淪為殖民者的幫兇,或是通過自身的“抵抗”,“在場(chǎng)”或“可見”成為抵抗殖民統(tǒng)治,反抗后殖民權(quán)力的主體力量。 本文以后殖民理論和后殖民翻譯研究為基礎(chǔ),主要從兩大視角觀察《印度之行》三個(gè)譯本的譯者對(duì)小說中福斯特的殖民話語(yǔ)的態(tài)度(接受,或是抵制),并審視譯者對(duì)小說中印度文化的態(tài)度。本文選取的三個(gè)中文譯本來自不同的譯者。第一個(gè)譯本出版于1988年,由石幼珊,馬志行,董冀平合譯；第二個(gè)譯本于1990年出版,由楊自儉和邵翠英合譯；第三個(gè)譯本由楊自檢重譯,付梓于2003年,于2008年重印。本文觀察對(duì)比了不同的譯者在譯本中對(duì)小說里福斯特的殖民話語(yǔ)以及對(duì)印度文化元素的處理方式,從而挖掘出不同譯者在對(duì)福斯特的殖民話語(yǔ)的態(tài)度上存在的差異,以及他們對(duì)印度文化方面的態(tài)度差異,并從譯者內(nèi)部因素和譯者外部條件出發(fā)分析了這些差異的原因。本文審視了不同譯者的態(tài)度差異,概況出一個(gè)典型的翻譯現(xiàn)象——中國(guó)譯者由于受到翻譯忠實(shí)原則的羈絆,對(duì)于小說中福斯特的殖民話語(yǔ),他們不會(huì)采取激進(jìn)的方式進(jìn)行完全的反抗,而是采取部分的抵抗,主要通過溫和、隱秘的方式來削弱這些殖民話語(yǔ)。通過觀察楊自儉對(duì)印度文化及對(duì)西方文化的態(tài)度,本文預(yù)期雜糅作為一種解殖理念,一種豐富人類社會(huì)的途徑,在未來的翻譯領(lǐng)域?qū)��?huì)備受推崇。
[Abstract]:Post-colonial theory focuses on differences in cultural status, power struggles between cultures, and a series of issues related to cultural and power differences, such as racial discrimination and cultural imperialism. Cultural identity and so on. Post-colonial translation studies began in the middle and late period of 1980s, derived from post-colonial theory, and inherited the discourse of cultural and political criticism in post-colonial criticism, in the post-colonial context. Translation is no longer a purely linguistic process that objectively realizes semantic equivalence between texts. Post-colonial translation studies have jumped out of the traditional barriers of translation studies and denied the Utopian hypothesis of linguistic and cultural equality in traditional translation theory. This paper begins to explore the subversive effect of the translation on the target language culture and the external constraints affecting the generation of the target language, such as ideology, power differences, political and cultural conflicts, etc. Post-colonial translation studies focus on different nationalities. The unequal power relationship between different languages and cultures points out that translation has become a colonial tool in many ways but at the same time translation has been used and should be used to subvert colonial rule. The translator, as the key factor influencing the production of the translation, plays a different role in the post-colonial context and accepts the colonial discourse directly without resistance, thus perpetuating colonialism. To become an accomplice of colonists, or through their own "resistance", "presence" or "visible" to resist colonial rule, resistance to post-colonial power of the main force. Based on the post-colonial theory and the post-colonial translation study, this paper mainly looks at the attitude (acceptance or resistance) of the three versions of "the Journey to India" towards Foster's colonial discourse in the novel from two perspectives. The first version, published in 1988, was translated by Shi Youshan, Ma Zhixing, Dong Jiping and translated by Shi Youshan, Ma Zhixing and Dong Jiping. The second version was published in 1990 and translated by Yang Zijian and Shao Cui-ying. The third version was retranslated by Yang Zichen and went to press on 2003. Reprinted in 2008, this paper examines and compares the colonial discourse of Foster in the novel and the treatment of Indian cultural elements in different translators' versions. Therefore, we can find out the differences between different translators in their attitudes towards Foster's colonial discourse and their attitudes towards Indian culture. The author also analyzes the causes of these differences from the perspective of the translator's internal factors and the translator's external conditions. A typical translation phenomenon is that Chinese translators, because they are bound by the principle of faithfulness in translation, do not take radical measures to resist the colonial discourse of Foster in the novel. By observing Yang Zi-jian 's attitude towards Indian culture and Western culture, this paper is expected to combine it as a concept of colonization. A way to enrich human society will be highly regarded in the field of translation in the future.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：H059

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張中載;《印度之行》不和諧的雙聲:反殖民主義與殖民主義話語(yǔ)[J];外國(guó)文學(xué);2000年03期

2 王寧;敘述、文化定位和身份認(rèn)同——霍米·巴巴的后殖民批評(píng)理論[J];外國(guó)文學(xué);2002年06期

3 胡天賦;;從人物的再現(xiàn)看賽譯《水滸傳》的后殖民主義色彩[J];河南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年05期

4 張科榮;知識(shí)權(quán)力與后殖民主義文化霸權(quán)[J];廣西社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年01期

5 王輝;;后殖民視域下的辜鴻銘《中庸》譯本[J];解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

6 陳倩;;霍米·巴巴雜合理論與翻譯策略研究——兼論楊憲益、戴乃迭的《紅樓夢(mèng)》譯本的雜合[J];焦作師范高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

7 董務(wù)剛;談后殖民理論與翻譯研究[J];齊齊哈爾大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年06期

8 王蘋,劉文捷;試從語(yǔ)域的角度探討《印度之行》兩種譯本的得失[J];四川外語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年01期

9 李紅滿;翻譯研究的后殖民視角[J];四川外語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

10 陳歷明;從后殖民主義視角看《紅樓夢(mèng)》的兩個(gè)英譯本[J];四川外語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 吳波;論譯者的主體性[D];華東師范大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：1479499