【作者】 袁伟；

【导师】 黄德新；

【作者基本信息】 山东师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 翻译是一项复杂而又充满挑战性的活动,在其过程中译者随时可能为各种矛盾所困惑而处于进退两难的境地。在各种矛盾之中关键的一个是怎样处理归化和异化的关系,处理文化差异用归化法还是异化法一直是中国翻译界争论的焦点。近几年来,这个争论重新出现并又再次成为人们讨论的热门问题。与往年不同的是,在这次争论中许多学者纷纷引用韦努蒂对归化异化所下的定义,而且在没有深刻分析的前提下追随韦努蒂而提倡“贬归化,扬异化”。对这个全新理论理解的表面化和盲目的追随导致了我们的讨论和美国流行的后殖民语境下的探讨出现了严重错位。鉴于这种情况,本论文试图把归化异化这个主题置于比较翻译研究的框架下进一步思考。除引言和结语外,论文共分三章。第一章通过对当今中西对归化异化争论的简单回顾,指出了中国有关探讨中存在的问题以及将它和韦努蒂异化理论进行比较的必要性。第二章论述了中国当今所争论的两种翻译策略和韦努蒂的异化主张的相似点和差异。二者的相似点表现在“文化转向”之前讨论的实质、归化在历史上的主导地位和理论应用范围三个方面,正是因为这些相似点,许多学者经常将它们混为一谈。事实上,它们在理论基础,研究视角,异化策略上存在很大的差异:首先,韦努蒂的异化主张以解构主义为理论基础,但中国的相关讨论没有明显的理论基础。其次,韦努蒂的后殖民研究视角属于翻译的外部研究,其中归化是强势文化对弱势文化进行文化殖民的途径,而异化策略则是抵抗强势文化优势的一种手段,而中国的讨论属于内部研究,往往提供一些怎样归化或者异化的翻译技巧。另外,二者的异化策略存在很大差异,主要表现在异化方法、动机、效果以及侧重点四个方面。以上的不同点主要源于中国和西方对翻译理论不同的理解,不同的翻译研究传统以及英语和汉语之间不同的语言惯例。第三章论述了韦努蒂的理论对中国翻译研究的启发。尽管韦努蒂的异化理论受到了不少批判,而且不太适用于中国的翻译实践,但是他对翻译研究做出了很大的贡献。他的理论给中国归化与异化讨论的最大启发是他揭露了翻译策略背后更多还原

【Abstract】 Translation is a complicated and challenging activity and in its process the translator might be puzzled by various contradictions and placed in a dilemma at any time. Among them the key one is how to deal with the relationship between domestication and foreignization, two basic translation strategies adopted to treat the linguistic and cultural differences between two languages. The choice between domestication and foreignization has long been the focus of discussion in Chinese translation circle. In recent years, it recurs and becomes the focus of debates again. But different from the former discussions, in this one the scholars always quote Lawrence Venuti’s definitions of domestication and foreignization and tend to follow his advocacy of privileging foreignization over domestication without deep analysis. The understanding of Venuti’s theory is superficial and the advocacy of foreignization is blind, resulting in the serious discrepancy between our understanding of these two strategies and the postcolonial understanding prevailing in America. In this sense, this thesis seeks to reconsider the topic of domestication and foreignization in translation within the framework of a comparative translation study. Besides the introduction and the conclusion this thesis consists of three chapters. In the first chapter, after a quick retrospection to the current debates upon domestication and foreignization both in China and in the West, the author points out the problems in Chinese debate and the necessity of making a comparative study between them. The second chapter is devoted to the detailed analysis of similarities and differences between Chinese discussion about these two strategies and Venuti’s one. Due to their similarities in the essence of discussion before the cultural turn, the dominant place of domestication in the history and the scope of application,many scholars confuse them as the same one. In fact, they are different in theoretical basis, perspective of study and foreignizing translation. First, Venuti’s theory is based on deconstruction theory, while there is no obvious theoretical basis in Chinese discussions. Second, Venuti’s research is made from the perspective of postcolonial theory, belonging to the external study, in which domestication is a way for the dominant culture to exert cultural hegemony over the dominated one and foreignization is an effective resistance against the ethnocentrism and cultural colonization of the dominant culture. But the Chinese discussion belongs to the internal study, supplying the concrete skills and methods for translation practice. Third, Venuti’s foreignzing translation is different from the Chinese one in foreignizing methods, motives, effects and focuses in application. The reasons for the above differences can be found mainly in the following three aspects: the first one is the different understanding of translation theory between China and the West; the second one is their different traditions of translation research; the third one is their different linguistic conventions. In the third chapter, on the basis of summarizing the criticisms of Venuti’s theory and his contribution to translation studies, the author points out its enlightenment to Chinese discussion: the power differentials concealed in translation strategies. Keeping this concept in mind, the author first discusses domestication and foreignization in the dominant culture and the dominated culture respectively. Then after a careful analysis of the disadvantageous position of Chinese culture in the present world, a new concept “hybridity”is introduced to revalue the issue. Then from the above analysis, the author draws a conclusion: the binary oppositions between domestication and foreignization should be broken and a third space “hybridity”is available where the two cultures involved can converse with each other on an equal basis, thus promoting exchange and communication between them. Getting implications from the discussion about domestication and foreignization, the author points out upon conclusion that when a new foreign translation theory is introduced into China, a comprehensive understanding is indispensable to the further research no it. Copying the foreign theories mechanically in disregard of specific conditions is harmful to translation studies. What’s more, the translators and translation theoreticians should have an open mind to different approaches in更多还原