文献综述样本(全)

本科生毕业论文（设计）文献综述

从操控论看林纾的《黑奴吁天录》

学生姓名

学号

指导教师

二级学院外国语学院

专业名称英语

班级

2011年11月

The Literature Review

of

A Study of Lin Shu’s Heinu Yu Tian Lu from Manipulation

Theory Perspective

Lin Shu is a renowned man of letters as well as translator in the late Qing Dynasty. But he is remembered more for his translation efforts than his other achievements because these works exerted great influence on the society then. What is special about Lin Shu is that he was a monolingual and hence had to collaborate with others who were fluent in foreign languages during translating. That is why Lin Shu has been studied and commented on by so many scholars for a long time.

When it comes to the study of translation, one is sure to think of the widely known traditional criterion “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance” put forward by Y an Fu. But as far as this criterion is concerned, Lin Shu is always heavily criticized since he made a lot of changes in many of his translation works.

However, the “cultural turn”that occurred in the 1970s provides us with new perspectives in the study of translation. More and more scholars have realized that Lin Shu did not make the changes for no reason. They tend to explore his works from new perspectives and focus on the ideological, cultural, historical and other reasons why Lin Shu should make such alternations.

1. Previous Studies on Lin Shu’s Translation

While Lin Shu’s was alive, many scholars had commented upon his translation. But a number of them tended to criticize him. In 1918, Liu Bannong(刘半农), in his “Reply to Wang Jingxuan’s letter”(《复王敬轩书》) (薛绥之& 张俊才，2010:129-131), said that he seemed to see no good in Lin Shu’s translation. Liu’s criticism mainly focused on Lin Shu’s bad selection of the original works, mistranslations, lack of refinement in language and so on.

After Lin Shu’s death, in 1924, Zheng Zhenduo(郑振铎) gave a fair and

objective comment on Lin’s translation in Mr Lin Qinnan(《林琴南先生》)( 薛绥之& 张俊才，2010:133-145). He appreciated Lin Shu’s translation efforts and evaluated the great contribution and impact of Lin’s translation. After the foundation of the People’s Republic of China，in 1964, Qian Zhongshu（钱钟书）wrote an important essay entitled Lin Shu’s Translations(《林纾的翻译》)( 薛绥之& 张俊才, 2010:256-281). In this essay, Qian expressed that Lin Shu’s translation successfully aroused people’s interest in the Western literature. He also made a detailed study on Lin Shu’s mistranslations and compared his classical Chinese writings with the orthodox classical Chinese.

In recent decades, studies on Lin Shu include The Research Materials on Lin Shu edited by Xue Suizhi & Zhang Juncai（薛绥之& 张俊才，2010）which collects most of Lin Shu’s essays and commentary essays on Lin Shu by many scholars. Lin Wei （林薇，1990）provides us with a summary of studies on Lin Shu in her book A Review of Researches on Lin Shu (《百年沉浮——林纾研究综述》). This is a more general and comprehensive book that covers some unknown anecdotes of Lin Shu and some materials on the study of Lin Shu including his life, translation works, literary achievements and so on.

2. Previous Studies on Lin Shu’s Translation of Heinu Yu Tian Lu

Ling Shi(灵石), a traditional scholar, wrote an article after he read Heinu Yu Tian Lu. The mistreatment and miserable destiny of the black slaves made him think of the befalling tragic fate of the Chinese people. He considered the book a great success which could arouse the patriotism among the Chinese(薛绥之& 张俊才, 2010:113-115). But on the whole his article was just an emotional expression without theoretical support.

In recent years, researchers tend to study this work from new perspectives. In her article “Cultural Adaptation in Lin Shu’s Translation of Uncle Tom’s Cabin”(《从<黑奴吁天录>看林纾的文化改写》)，Chen Y an(陈燕，2002) probes into the cultural reasons for Lin Shu’s unfaithfulness and attempts to analyze the text from three perspectives, different writing styles between Chinese and Western literature, readers’

expectations and multiple identities of the translator. Martha Cheung（张佩瑶，2003）, a professor from HongKong Baptist University, applies Michel Foucault’s theory of discourse to Lin Shu’s translation in her article “Translation as Discourse: a Re-reading of Wei Yi and Lin Shu’s Chinese Translation of Uncle Tom’s Cabin”(《从话语的角度重读魏易与林纾合译的<黑奴吁天录>》), illustrating Lin Shu’s ideological manipulation of the religious material of the source text. A new and rare perspective on the study is translation ethics. Luo Hong(罗虹,2011) published an article “Mistranslation in the Light of Translation Ethics: a case study of Heinu Yu Tian Lu”(《翻译伦理观照下的误译——以<黑奴吁天录>为例》), holding that mistranslation is caused by certain factors such as cultural intention, religious culture, ideology and poetics. There are also several M.A theses comparing Lin Shu’s version of Heinu Yu Tian Lu with other translators’. For example, Bao Yujun(鲍玉君，2003) from Guangdong University of Foreign Studies chooses “What Makes the Difference: Uncle Tom’s Cabin Revisited”(《从<黑奴吁天录>到<汤姆大伯的小屋>翻译、重译及其社会历史背景的描述性研究》) as the subject of his master thesis. Based on the theories from the Manipulation school, Bao Yujun adopts a descriptive and systemic approach to explore the correlations between the translators’ decision-making and the social-cultural contexts. Liu Qin(刘琴，2006), in her thesis entitled “A Descriptive Study: A Comparison between Two Chinese V ersions of Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (《从描述性翻译研究视角比较Uncle Tom’s Cabin的两个中译本》), gives a diachronic description of Lin’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin by comparing it with Huang Jizhong’s version from the linguistic and cultural perspectives, analyzing the causes of the differences and demonstrating the important role that socio-cultural factors can play in the translating process.

3. Deficiencies of Previous Studies

Although many scholars have made abundant researches on Lin Shu and his Heinu Yu Tian Lu, there still exist some deficiencies.

Firstly, the examples of Lin Shu’s alternations to the SL used by previous scholars are often repeated. It is sometimes unavoidable because these examples are

the most typical of Lin Shu’s adaptation and they can better illustrate the author’s purpose. But we need to explore new ones and make new discoveries.

Secondly, few of those studies are based on the manipulation theory put forward by AndréLefevere. This theory is one of the most important theories in translation studies. According to AndréLefevere, translation is controlled by three elements: ideology, poetics and patronage. The author thinks that Lin Shu’s Heinu Yu Tian Lu is a very good example of how these three elements take effects on translation. Therefore, it is worthy of further study.

References

[1]Bassnett, S. & A. Lefevere.Constructing Cultures[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language School Press, 2001.

[2]Lefevere, A.Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language School Press, 2004a

[3]Lefevere, A. Translation, History and Culture: a Source Book [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language School Press, 2004b.

[4]Stowe, H.B. Uncle Tom’s Cabin[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press, 1992.

[5]鲍玉君. 从《黑奴吁天录》到《汤姆大伯的小屋》翻译、重译及其社会历史背景的描述性研究[D]. 广州：广东外语外贸大学，2003.

[6]陈燕. 从《黑奴吁天录》看林书的文化改写[J]. 海南师范学院报，2002（1）：136-140.

[7]陈福康. 中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992.

[8]陈玉刚. 中国翻译文学史稿[M]. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1989.

[9]郭延礼. 中国近代翻译文学概论[M]. 武汉：湖北教育出版社，1997.

[10]蒋骁华. 意识形态对翻译的影响：阐发与新思考[J]. 中国翻译，2003（9）24-29.

[11]林薇.百年沉浮：林纾研究综述[M].天津：天津教育出版社，1990.

[12]刘琴.从描述性翻译研究视角比较Uncle Tom’s Cabin的两个中译本[D].武汉：华中师范大学，2006.

[13]罗虹.翻译伦理观照下的误译[J].内蒙古民族大学学报，2011（5）：28-30.

[14]Stowe, H.B. 黑奴吁天录[M]. 林纾译. 北京：商务印书馆，1981.

[15]王东风. 一只看不见的手——论意识形态对翻译实践的操控[J]. 中国翻译，2003（9）：16-23.

[16]王宏志. 重释“信达雅”：二十世纪中国翻译研究[M]. 上海：东方出版中心，

1999.

[17]薛绥之、张俊才. 中国文学史资料全编?林纾研究资料[M]. 北京：知识产权

出版社，2010.

[18]张佩瑶. 从话语的角度重读魏易和林纾合译的《黑奴吁天录》[J]. 中国翻

译,2003（3）：15-20.