再探严复与泰特勒的翻译观点之差异.doc

  1. 1、本文档共8页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
再探严复与泰特勒的翻译观点之差异课案

再探严复与泰特勒的翻译观点之差异 (Re-exploring the Difference in the Viewpoints of Translation between Yan Fu and Alexander Fraser Tytler) 陈瑞山 国立高雄第一科技大学 应用英语系、口笔译研究所 摘要    国内学界提到严复的翻译圭臬「信达雅」时,常常会与苏格兰的泰特勒在《翻译原理论》中所揭橥的「三条翻译通律」相提;不过,多半都说严氏「信达雅」观念之形成是受到泰特勒氏之影响。而这类「影响」论述,又常流于历史性的巧合或自传式的主观判断,或表象上的模拟,较缺乏就两者间对翻译的本质性认知的客观探讨。这种看法对于出生较晚、身处内外交迫特殊时空背景的中国知识分子严复,在其翻译领域的学术地位上是否有欠公允,颇值得我们来做个探究。   本专题研究计划拟用文本研究的方法,以严复所译《天演论》书里的<译例言>文本为主,就其中谈到的「信达雅」三原则与泰特勒的著作《翻译原理论》文本内所揭示的「总原则」及自此演绎出的「三条翻译通律」所蕴含的翻译问题,探索并分析他俩内在观念与结构上之差异。本文研究内容则包括严复、泰特勒个别建构的翻译理论其动机的差异、总原则的显与隐、翻译原则重要性次序的排列、执行翻译原则工作难度的分级等四大重要项目,再指出他们之间真正的差异,并从而探索他们独自的翻译观之面貌。   关键词:严复、天演论、译例言、翻译三难、信达雅、泰特勒、翻译原理论、三条通律、翻译艺术、翻译总原则。   Re-exploring the Difference in the Viewpoints of Translation between Yan Fu and Alexander Fraser Tytler   Ruey-shan Chen   Department of EnglishInstitute of Interpreting and Translation National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology   Abstract   Oftentimes when local scholars in the field of translation studies discuss Yan Fu’s “Three Difficulties in Translation: Xin, Da, and Ya?as criteria for judging what is a good translation, they tend to associate Yan抯 remarks with the Scottish professor Alexander F. Tytler’s “Three General Laws of Translation” propounded in the latter’s Essay on Principles of Translation. Yet, that Yan is generally believed to have modeled his criteria of translation upon those of Tytler is held as a popular opinion. In other words, Tytler’s general principle had exerted a great influence on Yan in forming his idea about translation. However, this kind of opinion concerning the so-called influence, usually based on some historical coincidences, biographical inferences or some seemingly “supposed-to-be” analogies among their translating rules, is always biased and subject to doubt; therefore, it would be more objective if one could do an analytical exploration of what their individual texts mean in the nature of translation. Thus, it is worthy of a study to see whether this popul

文档评论(0)

jiayou10 + 关注
实名认证
内容提供者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

版权声明书
用户编号:8133070117000003

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档