【作者】 曹伟；

【导师】 孙昌坤；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 关联翻译理论结晶了Gutt试图将交际理论和翻译研究联系起来的努力。Sperber和Wilson提出的关联理论原来的用武之地是口头交际。Gutt认为翻译是一种交际现象,将关联理论引入翻译有望整合翻译领地,合理解决翻译难题。以翻译基本问题为主线,本文意在探究关联理论和翻译研究的联姻是否完美。为便于读者熟悉本文讨论的主要问题,第一章简要介绍了关联理论和关联翻译理论的主要概念:关联理论的突破在于认为交际是一个明示-推理过程;将语境定义为心理结构;关联原则是交际理论的准绳;并区分了描述性用法和阐释性用法。与之相应,在关联翻译理论中,译者和译文读者之间存在明示-推理的互动;语境囊括各种要素,包括内化在译者头脑中传统的翻译规则等;翻译是语际间阐释性用法;关联原则是决定译者决策的唯一标准。第二章首先探讨了游离于科学、艺术和技术之间的翻译的范畴。本文认为翻译是科学、艺术和技术的综合体。这个问题的解决在关联翻译理论中轻而易举:翻译既然是一种交际形式,而交际被公认是包含技术的科学和艺术,翻译自然也是科学、艺术和技术的三位一体。得力于关联概念的灵活性,Gutt的翻译理论和其他翻译理论相得益彰,甚至可以统领翻译功能派,翻译语言学派,和翻译的哲学派也有异曲同工之处。然而仅仅将翻译看成交际的一种形式,并在交际理论的框架中研究翻译不利于翻译学科的建立。翻译研究的任务就是确定翻译的特性。从这个意义上说,关联翻译理论任重而道远。本文的第三章着重考察关联翻译理论中的翻译评价和翻译策略。“对等”是倍受Gutt批判的概念。本文指出Gutt的观点不合理,而且他用“相似”代替“对等”也无益于真正意义上问题的解决。对于翻译评价,本文主张将对等、关联理论和辜正坤先生提出的多元互补理论结合起来,各取所长。关于翻译策略,本文首先梳理Gutt的方法,然后研究了中国学者构建的两种关联翻译模式。本文认为两种模式之间存在因果关系,既要保证原文和译文之间关联层次的对应,又要保证关联度的对应。本文的最后一章重在分析Gutt论证过程中的方法论。首先肯定了其方法论的优点:关联翻译理论给翻译研究提供了一个新视角;关联翻译理论是精简翻译理论的尝试,其理论框架开放、动态,囊括力强。同时也指出了其方法论的缺点,认为Gutt反对描述-分类法及多学科翻译研究方法不利于翻译研究的健康发展。翻译批评不能以偏概全,因噎废食。最后针对全文提出的问题提出了几点对策。更多还原

【Abstract】 Gutt’s Relevance Theoretic Translation Account (RTTA) is the crystalization of his efforts to make bridges between general communicative theories and translation studies. We know that Relevance Theory (RT), put forward by Sperber and Wilson, is about verbal communication. Based on the recognition that translation is a particular form of communication, Gutt holds that application of RT to translation studies will potentially define translation field more neatly and may come up with more sound solution to previous troublesome questions.This paper attempts to study whether the marriage of RT and translation is a happy one, following the thread of RTTA’s stance on basic translation issues.The first chapter gives a brief introduction to essential concepts in RT and RTTA in order to familiarize readers with the overall framework under discussion: breakthroughs made by RT include its proposition that communication is an ostensive-inferential process, the unique definition of context as a psychological construct, its proposal of the principle of relevance as the yardstick in communication account, and its distinction between descriptive use and interpretive use. Likewise, according to RTTA, the ostensive-inferential interaction exists between translators and target readers; context in translation covers a wide range of factors, including conventional translation rules and principles which have been internalized in translators’ mind; the principle of relevance is the single central standard that determines important decision-makings; translation is defined as interlingual interpretive use. Major concerns include: the nature of translation in RT framework; translating strategies and translation assessment implied in RT; Gutt’s methodology in presenting his theory.The following chapters try to touch these basic concerns in translation field as objectively and comprehensively as possible. The second chapter begins with the examination of the debate about the category of translation which slides from a craft, an art and a science. Detailed analysis about this issue ends with the conclusion that translation should be accounted as the integration of science, art and technique. This belief is technically reinforced by RTTA, which views translation as a form of communication, and communication is commonly identified as a science, an art requiring techniques. Moreover, thanks to the flexible concept of relevance, Gutt’s account goes well with other approaches, and even has the latent power leading other major schools of translation, such as the linguistic school, the functional school, the philosophical school, etc. However, only to identify translation as communication, especially to embed translation studies to general communication theory endangers the establishment of translation as an independent discipline. Translation, a genre of communication as it is, by no means, is affiliated to the study of general communication. One task of translation studies is to fix the uniqueness of translation itself. In this sense, it is pointed out RTTA still has a long way to go.The third chapter turns to the discussion of translating strategies and translation assessment in RTTA. "Equivalence" is an inevitable concept whenever translation strategies and assessment are mentioned. At the start of his argument, Gutt severely criticizes equivalence because it is usually hierarchically over-specified on one hand; moreover it is not a qualified evaluative standard. To me, his criticism is not well-grounded. Besides, Gutt’s implicit replacement of equivalence with resemblance is ineffective, for resemblance is not essentially different from equivalence. On translation assessment, a recommendation made by this paper is to combine equivalence, relevance theory and the plural complementarism proposed by Mr. Gu. On translating strategies, it first combs the method suggested by Gutt. Then, investigation is made on major achievements on the construction of relevance-based translation models in China: Zhao Yanchun’s model and the model put forward by Li Yin and Luo Xuanmin. In the first model, attention is primarily paid to the three levels on which relevance should be represented in translating and direct translation is preferred; and in the second model, the maintenance of the degree of relevance is stressed. This paper suggests that the two models be synthesized in translation practice.The last chapter is devoted to the observation of Gutt’s methodology in his argumentation. It first affirms the strengths of Gutt’s methodology in three aspects: RTTA offers a unique perspective in viewing translation phenomena: based on the way human minds entertain thoughts, he distinguishes descriptive use and interpretive use, defines translation as interlingual interpretive use; he defines context unconventionally; Gutt tends to streamline or simplify overall translation theory by giving translation a brief definition, following existing theory mode and giving up efforts in translation description and classification; his relevance-based framework is open-ended, dynamic and highly inclusive. Finally the paper also indicates the weaknesses of Gutt’s methodology, concluding that it is not proper to go against the descriptive-classificatory approach, the multidiscipUnary approach and exclude interlingual descriptive use; it is not wise to deny the whole due to its partial deficiency in theoretical criticism and to be over general. Finally the paper ends with brief suggestions about questions raised in the whole paper.更多还原