两个《红楼梦》英译本透露的文化差异——韩礼德的语篇功能视角-cultural differences revealed in two english versions of a dream of red mansions - hallidays textual function perspective.docxVIP

摘要在中国四大古典名著之一《红楼梦》的英译本中，影响最大的莫过于霍克斯 和杨宪益夫妇的两个版本。这也是《红楼梦》英译本中仅有的两个全译本。随着《红楼梦》英译研究的持续不衰，本研究将是一项有意义的工作。 本文以韩礼德三大纯理功能中的语篇功能作为理论框架，将从主位结构，信息结构和衔接三个方面对《红楼梦》的两个英译本展开对比分析。所采用的语料 均来自这两个译本中的人物对话。在这一小说中，人物对话占据了一半以上的篇 幅，因而以这些对话作为本文的研究语料是极具代表性的。经过文本对比研究，可以发现：虽然霍译本和杨译本在主位推进模式和信息 结构方面没有明显差别，但是它们在主位结构方面的差异却非常显著。霍译本较 之杨译本采用了更多标记性主位；在衔接方面，霍译本在照应的使用次数方面明 显超过杨译本，尽管在替代的使用上，两者差异不明显。本文通过跨文化视角下对上述差异的分析后发现，杨译本采用了作者导向的 翻译策略，因而在译文中保留了更多汉语特色；而霍译本则以读者为导向，使译 文的表述更具有西方特色，并运用了更多衔接机制来保证形式上的连贯性。在这 些策略的背后，有着对民族文化的自我意识等内在原因和出版社自身的考虑以及 时代特色等外在原因：杨译本出于对本民族文化的维护，拒绝了外来文化的同化 作用。杨译本的出版社——外文出版社——所坚持的出版原则，也要求译者在翻 译的过程中努力保留本民族的文化特色。杨译本的出版年代 1978 年也不可避免 地在杨译本中留下了时代烙印。关键词：语篇功能；对比研究；红楼梦；主位结构；信息结构；衔接AbstractAmong English versions of Hong Lou Meng, one of the four greatest Chinese classical novels, the ones by Hawkes and the Yangs are the most widely-read only complete translation versions. This paper adopts Textual Metafunction under Halliday’s three metafunctions as its framework, and makes a contrastive study of two English versions of Hong Lou Meng from perspectives of thematic structure, information structure and cohesion. The selected corpus is from characters’ dialogues in these two versions. As dialogues amount to over one half of the whole novel, they as the selected corpus in this paper are very representative.With a contrastive study, it can be found that the two versions are basically the same in Theme Progression and have no salient differences in information structure, but they differ remarkably in thematic structure: Hawkes’ choice of themes is greatly inconsistent with ST and more marked themes are used; in cohesion, Hawkes used more references whereas the two make no obvious difference in substitution.Attempt is also made to account for these differences from cross-cultural aspects: the Yangs adopted an author-oriented strategy and retained most of the characteristics of the Chinese language while Hawkes’ is reader-oriented and closer to western readers in expression. He employed more cohesive devi