比较文学翻译
比较文学的名词解释
一、名词解释1、a 比较文学：是一门运用比较方法研究民族与民族、国家与国家之间的文学以及文学和其他艺术形式、其他意识形态之间关系的独立学科，它是文学研究的一支。
b比较文学是一种开放式的文学研究，它具有宏观的视野和国际的角度，以跨民族、跨语言、跨文化、跨学科界线的各种文学关系为研究对象，在理论方法上，具有比较的自觉意识和兼容并包的特色。
——陈惇刘象愚c比较文学的定义：比较文学是以世界性眼光和胸怀来从事不同国家、不同文明和不同学科之间的跨越式文学比较研究。
它主要研究各种跨越中文学的同源性、类同性、变异性、异质性和互补性，以实证性影响研究、文学变异研究、平行研究和总体文学研究为基本方法论，其目的在于以世界性眼光来总结文学规律和文学审美特性，加强世界文学的相互了解与整合，推动世界文学的发展。
2、平行研究：就是将那些相似、类似的、卓然可比但是没有直接关系的两个或几个民族的文学，两个或几个民族的作家作品加以比较，研究其同异，并找出有益的结论。
3、影响研究：主要研究民族与民族文学之间的直接影响和实是联系，既要研究实施以影响的民族的作家、作品，又要研究接受影响的民族作家、作品，还要研究产生影响的过程、途径、媒介的手段。
4、渊源学：从接受者（终点）出发，溯源而上，去寻找影响源，确认放送点。
注重资料证据的搜集、整理和考核，是一种以考据为主的实证研究。
誉舆学：以研究放送效果为主的研究。
流传学：以研究放送起点（放送者）和终点（接受者）的内在联系，以寻找终点为目的的研究。
5、可比性：是指比较对象间具有某种可作比较的基础，即文学现象的同与异，只有那些同时具备相同或相异两重关系的文学现象才具有可比的价值，才可能探索出文学的共同规律和美学本质。
6、平行研究回现论：（俄比较文学家维谢洛夫斯基提出），它认为在社会历史的发展过程中，在他们的历史文化环境，不同民族的文学会出现重合和类似现象，这种重合或类似自成系统，不必考虑年代、地域或环境、影响等。
比较文学名词解释
法国学派是比较文学学科史上最早形成的一个学派，也是影响最大的学派之一。其主要代表人物有维尔曼、戴克斯特、巴登斯贝尔、梵·第根、卡雷和基亚等。法国学派的比较文学研究是在进化论和实证主义思想指导下发展起来的。他们着重研究各国文学的联系，用确凿的事实证明各国文学之间影响与被影响的关系，使比较文学的国别文学和民族文学中分离出来，成为一门研究国际间文学交流、影响与融合的独立学科。但由于法国学派只注重事实的考据，崇尚实证，而且将文学比较的范围仅仅集中在以法国文学为中心的欧洲，而缺乏更为广泛的视野和对文学的美学规律的关注，受到了后来的美国学派为主的比较文学研究新学派的攻击与批评。
11、意象研究
意象研究是指对不同民族文学中具有某种特殊文化意蕴和文学意味的物象的研究。它常常是一些自然现象或物质客体，如日月星辰、山石云泉等；也可能是一些动植物，如梅兰竹菊、狐狸、狮子等等，还可能是想象性的神话传说中事物，如妖魔鬼怪，神灯宝石等等。
12、题材
一般文学理论研究中的题材是指作家在观察体验生活的过程中，在掌握大量素材的基础上形成的，根据一定创作意图进行选择和虚构，从而进入文学作品的一定的人物、事件和生活现象。主题学中的题材概念与之不同，伊丽莎白·弗伦泽尔认为，题材就是“一个存在于这一作品之前轮廓清晰的故事脉络，一个‘情节’，它是一种内在或外在的经验，一个当代故事中的报导，一个历史的、神话的或者宗教的动作，一部由另外一作家加工了的作品，或者甚至是一件想象的产物，用文学方式进行了处理。”
13、比较诗学
比较诗学就是对不同文化背景、不同民族、国家的文学理论、文学观念、文学思想进行比较研究。
14、跨学科研究
跨学科研究又称“交叉研究”、“科技整合”、“跨类研究”等。跨学科研究主要探讨文学与其他艺术门类（如美术、音乐、雕塑、影视、建筑等），文学与文人社会科学（如哲学、心理学、历史学、宗教、语言学等），文学与自然科学之间的关系，它是沟通文学与自然科学、人文社会科学以及其他艺术门类联系的良好途径。
比较文学译介学翻译研究
比较文学译介学翻译研究一、引言由于翻译是不同民族文学之间交流的必由之路，以对具有跨越特征的文学关系的研究为己任的比较文学自然从一开始就十分重视翻译研究。
上个世纪30年代前后，翻译研究已发展成为比较文学（译介学）的一个自成体系的、不可或缺的分支。
然而，随着中外翻译学者研究的不断深入，对于翻译研究究竟应该自成一派还是被视为比较文学的一个分支这一问题，仍然有很大的争议。
译介学属于比较文学中的媒介学范畴，是20世纪30年代兴起的一门学科。
从宽泛意义上来讲，译介学专门研究跨文化翻译，尤其是文学翻译在跨文化交际中所起的桥梁作用以及所具有的特殊意义和价值，研究两种不同文化背景的语言在转换过程中为什么会出现文化信息失落与变形，研究“创造性叛逆”等问题。
在中国，比较文学是一门新兴学科，很多人对比较文学的认识还不清楚，对于把翻译研究和比较文学联系在一起也表示不可理解。
很多人至今尚未弄清比较文学和翻译研究有何关系，或者说不明白译介学与传统的翻译研究有何区别，因此我们有必要弄清译介学和翻译研究这两门学科之间究竟有着怎样的关系。
二、何为译介学译介学最初是从比较文学中媒介学角度出发，目前则越来越多是从比较文化的角度出发对翻译（尤其是文学翻译）和翻译文学进行研究。
其意思是指，对文学翻译、翻译文学及其文化层面上的翻译研究，是一种跨文化研究。
也可以说，译介学是对那种专注于语言转换层面的传统翻译研究的颠覆。
严格而言，译介学的研究不是一种语言研究，而是一种文学研究或者文化研究，它关心的不是语言层面上出发语和目的语之间如何转换的问题，而是原文在这种外语和本族语转换过程中信息的失落、变形、增添、扩神等问题，它关心的是翻译（主要是文学翻译）作为人类一种跨文化交流的实践活动所具有的独特价值和意义。
由此可见，比较文学中的译介学研究是比较文学研究中语言、文字与文学性相结合的部分，主要指文学翻译、翻译文学以及文化层面上的翻译研究，也是把翻译作为一种跨语际交流实践所进行的跨文化研究。
比较文学翻译研究的学术价值和意义
比较文学翻译研究的学术价值和意义翻译研究在人文社科领域中，很长时间都处在比较边缘的地位，这与人们对翻译以及对翻译研究的认识有关。
翻译过去被认为只是交流的工具，而翻译研究，也长期停留在“如何译”、“如何译得好”这样的语言转化研究层面上。
1970年代开始，翻译研究出现了“文化转向”,拓展了传统翻译研究的空间。
而人文社科学者也“发现”了翻译所蕴含的思想、文化等方面的研究价值，出现了人文社科领域的“翻译研究转向”.不同学科领域对翻译的重视，以及翻译研究的“文化转向”,里应外合，多元共生，相激相荡，形成了当代翻译研究丰富而多元的繁盛局面。
在丰富而多元的当代翻译研究中，比较文学翻译研究是其重要的研究范式。
那么，翻译为何成了比较文学的研究对象？比较文学开拓了哪些翻译研究层面，它与通常意义上的翻译研究有何不同，又有何联系？翻译研究者常为这些问题感到困惑。
为此，本文从梳理翻译与比较文学的关系着手，阐释比较文学翻译研究的研究性质、研究对象、研究范围及其研究目的，以揭示比较文学翻译研究在当代翻译研究中独特的学术价值和意义。
一、比较文学视域中的翻译文学的跨民族、跨文化传播，是比较文学产生的必要条件之一。
而文学的跨文化传播，很大程度上依赖于翻译。
歌德“世界文学”概念的提出，就是由翻译而触发的。
歌德发表关于“世界文学”谈话之前，他的作品已在法国、英国等国翻译发表，并且他的《塔索》、《浮士德》也刚刚在巴黎上演。
而歌德提出“世界文学”的主张更为直接的思想触发点，则是他读到了中国作品的译本。
歌德看到，随着文学、文化交流的日益频繁，各民族文学可能会汇合。
他在这种趋势下提出的“世界文学”概念，后来成为比较文学学科建立的理论滥觞。
从这个意义上来说，翻译催生了比较文学。
意大利比较文学家梅雷加利（Franco Meregali）指出：“翻译无疑是不同语种间的文学交流中最重要、最富特征的媒介”,“应当是比较文学的优先研究对象”.1 苏珊·巴斯奈特（Susan Bassnett）也强调：“翻译带来了新的观念、新的文类、新的文学样式”,“是促进文学史中信息流形成的关键方法，因此，任何比较文学的研究都需要把翻译史置于中心位置”.2 但早期的比较文学，只是把翻译作为考察文学传播和影响考据的线索。
论比较文学与翻译的关系
史 。２ 世 纪 ２ ０ ０年代一些中 国学者开设的具有明显跨文化文 学研究的课程是 中国比较文学 的滥觞 ， 不过 当时没有严格 的 学科定位和理论形态 。直至 ２ ０世纪 ８ ０年代 ， 随着北京大学 比较文学研究所 的成立 ， 比较文学在中国内地的地位 才逐 步 确立 。１９ 年 ， ９ ０ 研究生 培养学 科 目录中正式 列入 了 比较 文 学 ，９ ８ ， １９ 年 首都师范大学和 四川 大学分别成立 了比较文学 系。从此 ， 比较文学正式进入 国家教育体制和学术体制。 当前中国学者较为认同的比较文学 的定义为 ： 比较文学
例如对美国寒山诗的研究研究者关心的并不是英译本的翻译水平忠实程度他们感兴趣的是在中国本土默默无闻的寒山诗何以在美国广为流传大受推崇不仅成为五六十年代美国垮掉的一代的精神食粮而且还形成了连李白杜甫都难以望其项背的寒山热
２１ ０ ０年 ９ 月
内蒙 古 民族大 学 学报 （ 社会科 学版 ）
ｏｒａ０ ｎ ｒ ｎ ｏａ ｉｅ ｉ ｒ ａ ｏ ａｔｓ（ｏｉ ｃ ｎｅ ｕｎｌ ｆ ｎ ｅ Ｍｏｇ ｌ ｖｒ ｔ ｆ ｔ ｎｌｉ Ｓｃ ｌ ｉ ｃ Ｉ ｉＵｎ ｓ ｙ ｏ Ｎ ｉ ｉｅ ａＳ ｅ ｓ
传统模式 ， 有了更广泛视 角， 多研 究者 开始从 比较文学 和 许
文化 的角度研究 翻译。如此 ， 文学翻译研究的课题 申报有 时 就会遇到麻烦， 如归 到“ 比较文学 ” 名下 ， 就意 味着 把翻译研 究放到 了“ 中国文学 ” 的一级学科 之下 ， 如果归 到“ 国语 言 外 学及应用语言学” 名下 ， 则意味 着把和文 学息 息相 关 的文 学 翻译放到了“ 语言学 ” 的名 下。近年来 已有许 多学 者对此 提
出 意见 或 改 进 方法 ， 教育 部 目前 也 正 在 征 询 修 订 学 科 目录 的 意见 。我 们期 望 更 科 学 的学 科 目录 出现 。 （ ） 论 三 争
比较文学翻译
GENERAL, COMPARATIVE, AND NATIONAL LITERATURWith literary studies, we have distinguished between theory, history, and criticism. Using another basis of division, we shall now attempt a systematic definition of comparative, general, and national literatur e. The term ‘comparative’ literature is troublesome and doubtless, indeed, one of the reasons why this important mode of literary has had less than the expected academic success. Matthew Arnold1, translating Ampere2’s use of ‘histoire comparative’, was apparently the first to use the term in English (1848). The French have preferred the term used earlier by Villemain3, who had spoken of ‘literature comparee’ (1829), after the analogy of Cuiver4’s Anatomie comparee (1800). The Germans speak of ‘vergleichende Literaturgeschichte5’. Yet neither of these differently formed adjectives is very illuminating, since comparison is a method used by all criticism and sciences, and does not, in any way, adequately describe the specific procedures of literary study. The formal comparison between literatures – or even movements, figures, and works –is rarely a central theme in literary history, though such a book as F.C.Green’s Minuet6, comparing aspects of French and English eighteenth-century literature, may be illuminating in defining not only parallels and affinities but also divergences between the literary development of one nation and that of another.In practice, the term ‘comparative’ literature has covered and still covers rather distinct fields of study and groups of problems. It may mean, first, the study of oral literature, especially of folk-tale themes and their migration; of how and when they have entered ‘higher’, ‘artistic’ literature. This type of problem can be relegated to folklore, an important branch of learning which is only in part occupied with aesthetic facts, since it studies the total civilization of a ‘folk’, its costumes and customs, superstitions and tools, as well as its arts. We must, however, endorse the view that the study of oral literature is an intergral part of literary scholarship, for it cannot be divorced from the study of written works, and there has been and still is a continuous interaction between oral and written literature. Without going to the extreme of folklorists such as Hans Naumann7who consider most later oral literature gesunkenes Kulturgut8, we can recognize that1马修·阿诺德2安培3维尔曼4居维埃5德语“比较文学史”6格林的“小步舞”7汉斯·诺曼written upper-class literature has profoundly affected oral literature. On the other hand, we must assume the folk origin of many basic literary genres and themes, and we have abundant evidence for the social rise of folk literature. Still, the incorporation into folklore of chivalric romance and troubadour lyric is an indubitable fact. Though this is a view which would have shocked the Romantic believers in the creativity of the folk and the remote antiquity of folk art, nevertheless popular ballads, fairy tales, and legends as we know them are frequently of late origin and upper-class derivation. Yet the study of oral literature must be an important concern of every literary scholar who wants to understand the process of literary development, the origin and the rise of our literary genres and devices. It is unfortunate that the study of oral literature has thus far been so exclusively preoccupied with the study of themes and their migrations from country to country, i.e. with the raw materials of modern literatures. Of late, however, folklorists have increasingly turned their attention to the study of patterns, forms, and devices, to a morphology1of literary forms, to the problems of the teller and narrator and the audience of a tale, and have thus prepared the way for a close integration of their studies into a general conception of literary scholarship. Though the study of oral literature has its own peculiar problems, those of transmission and social setting, its fundamental problems, without doubt, are shared with written literature; and there is a continuity between oral and written literature which has never been interrupted. Scholars in the modern European literatures have neglected these questions to their own disadvantage, while literary historians in the Slavic and Scandinavian countries, where folklore is still – or was till recently –alive, have been in much closer touch with these studies. But ‘comparative literature’ is hardly the term by which to designate the study of oral literature.Another sense of ‘comparative’ literature confines it to the study of relationships between two or more literatures. This is the use established by the flourishing school of French comparatists headed by the late Fernand Baldensperger2and gathered around the Revue de literature comparee3. The school has especially given attention, sometimes mechanically but sometimes with considerable finesse, to such questions as the reputation and penetration, the influence and fame, of Goethe in France and England, of Ossian4and Carlyle51形态2巴登斯贝格3《比较文学评论》4哦相and Schiller1in France. It has developed a methodology which, going beyond the collection of information concerning reviews, translations, and influences, considers carefully the image, the concept of a particular author at a particular time, such diverse factors of transmission as periodicals, translators, salons, and travelers, and the ‘receiving factor’“接待因子”, the special atmosphere and literary situation into which the foreign author is imported. In total, much evidence for the close unity, especially of the Western European literatures has been accumulated; and our knowledge of the ‘foreign trade对外贸易’ of literatures has been immeasurably increased.But this conception of ‘comparative literature’ has also, one recognizes, its peculiar difficulties. No distinct system can, it seems, emerge from the accumulation of such studies. There is no methodological distinction between a study of ‘Shakespeare in France’ and a study of ‘Shakespeare in eighteen-century England’, or between a study of Poe爱伦坡’s influence on Baudelaire波德莱尔and one of Dryden德莱顿’s influence on Pope. Comparisons between literatures, if isolated from concern with the total national literatures, tend to restrict themselves to external of sources and influences, reputation and fame. Such studies do not permit us to analyse and judge an individual work of art, or even to consider the complicated whole of its genesis; instead, they are mainly devoted either to such echoes of a masterpiece as translations and imitations, frequently by second-rate authors, or to the prehistory of a masterpiece, the migrations and the spread of its themes and forms. The emphasis of ‘comparative literature’ thus c onceived is on externals; and the decline of this type of ‘comparative literature’ in recent decades reflects the general turning away from stress on mere ‘facts’, on sources and influences.A third conception obviates, however, all these criticisms, by identifying ‘comparative literature’ with the study of literature in its totality, with ‘world literature’, with ‘general’ or ‘universal’ literature. There are certain difficulties with these suggested equations. The term ‘world literature’, a translation of Goethe歌德’s Weltliteratur, is perhaps needlessly grandiose, implying that literature should be studied on all five continents, from New Zealand to Iceland. Goethe, actually, had no such thing in mind. ‘World literature’ was used by him to indicate a time w hen all literatures would become one. It is the ideal of the unification of all literatures into one great synthesis, where each nation would play its part in a universal concert. But Goethe himself saw that this is a very distant ideal, that no single nation is willing to give up its individuality. Today we are possibly even furtherremoved from such a state of amalgamation, and we would argue that we cannot even seriously wish that the diversities of national literatures should be obliterated. ‘World literature’ is frequently used in a third sense. It may mean the great treasure-house of the classics, such as Homer, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, and Goethe, whose reputation has spread all over the world and has lasted a considerable time. It thus has beco me a synonym for ‘masterpieces’, for a selection from literature which has its critical and pedagogic justification but can hardly satisfy the scholar who cannot confine himself to the great peaks if he is to understand the whole mountain ranges or, to drop the figure, all history and change.The possibly preferable term ‘general literature’ has other disadvantages. Originally it was used to mean poetics or theory and principles of literature, and in recent decades Paul Van Tieghem has tried to capture it for a special conception in contrast to ‘comparative literature’. According to him, ‘general literature’ studies those movements and fashions of literature which transcend national lines, while ‘comparative literature’ studies the interrelationships between two or more literatures. But how can we determine whether, e.g. Ossianism is a topic of ‘general’ or ‘comparative literature’? One cannot make a valid distinction between the influence of Walter Scott abroad and the international vogue of the historical n ovel. ‘Comparative’ and ‘general’ literature merge inevitably. Possibly, it would be best to speak simply of ‘literature’.Whatever the difficulties into which a conception of universal literary history may run, it is important to think of literature as a totality and to trace the growth and development of literature without regard to linguistic distinctions. The great argument for ‘comparative’ or ‘general’ literature or just ‘literature’ is the obvious falsity of the idea of a self-enclosed national literature. Western literature, at least, forms a unity, a whole. One cannot doubt the continuity between Greek and Roman literatures, the Western medieval world, and the main modern literatures; and, without minimizing the importance of Oriental influences, especially that of the Bible, one must recognize a close unity which includes all Europe, Russia, the United States, and the Latin-American literatures. This ideal was envisaged and, within their limited means, fulfilled, by the founders of literary history in the early nineteenth century: such men as the Schlegels史雷格尔兄弟, Bouterwek布特维克, Sismondi西斯蒙第, and Hallam哈勒姆. But then the further growth of nationalism combined with the effect of increasing specialization led to an increasingly narrow provincial cultivation of the study of national literatures. During the second half of the nineteenth century the ideal of a universal literarypractitioners of ‘comparative literature’ were folklor ists, ethnographers who, largely under the influence of Herbert Spencer, studied the origins of literature, its diversification in oral literary forms, and its emergence into the early epic, drama, and lyric. Evolutionism left, however, few traces on the history of modern literatures and apparently fell into discredit when it drew the parallel between literary change and biological evolution too closely. With it the ideal of universal literary history declined. Happily, in recent years there are many signs which augur a return to the ambition of general literary historiography. Ernst Robert Curtius’s科修斯European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages《欧洲文学与拉丁中古时代》(1948), which traces commonplaces through the totality of Western tradition with stupendous erudition, and Erich Auerbach埃利希·奥尔巴赫’s Mimesis模仿论(1946), a history of realism from Homer to Joyce based on sensitive stylistic analyses of individual passages, are achievements of scholarship which ignore the established nationalisms and convincingly demonstrate the unity of Western civilization, the vitality of the heritage of classical antiquity and medieval Christianity.Literary history as a synthesis, literary history on a super-national scale, will have to be written again. The study of comparative literature in this sense will make high demands on the linguistic proficiencies of our scholars. It asks for a widening of perspectives, a suppression of local and provincial sentiments, not easy to achieve. Yet literature is one, as art and humanity are one; and in this conception lies the future of historical literary studies.Within this enormous area – in practice, identical with all literary history – there are, no doubt, subdivisions somtimes running along linguistic lines. There are, first of all, the groups of the three main linguistic families in Europe –the Germanic, the Romance, and the Slavic literatures. The Romance literatures have particularly frequently been studied in close interconnection, from the days of Bouterwek up to Leonardo Olschki’s 奥尔式基attempt to write a history of them all for the medieval period. The Germanic literatures have been comparably studied, usually, only for the early Middle Ages, when the nearness of a general Teutonic条顿civilization, can be still strongly felt. Despite the customary opposition of Polish scholars, it would appear that the close linguistic affinities of the Slavic languages, in combination with shared popular traditions extending even to metrical forms, make up a basis for a common Slavic literature.The history of themes and forms, devices and genres, is obviously an international history. While most of our genres descend from the literature of Greece and Rome, they were very considerably modified and augmented duringindividual linguistic systems, is international. Furthermore, the great literary movements and styles of modern Europe (the Renaissance, the Baroque, Neo-Classicism, Romanticism, Realism, Symbolism) far exceed the boundaries of one nation, even though there are significant national differences between the working out of these styles. Also their geographical spread may vary. The Renaissance, e.g. penetrated to Poland but not to Russia or Bohemia. The Baroque style flooded the whole of Eastern Europe including the Ukraine, but hardly touched Russia proper. There may be also considerable chronological divergences: the Baroque style survived in the peasant civilizations of Eastern Europe well to the end of the eighteenth century when the West has passed through the Enlightenment, and so on. On the whole, the importance of linguistic barriers was quite unduly magnified during the nineteenth century.This emphasis was due to the very close association between Romantic (mostly linguistic) nationalism and the rise of modern organized literary history. It continues today through such practical influences as the virtual identification, especially in the United States, of the teaching of literature and the teaching of a language. The result, in the United States, has been an extraordinary lack of contact between the students of English, German, and French literature. Each of these groups bears a completely different imprint and uses different methods. These disjunctions are in part, doubtless, unavoidable, simply because most men live in but a single linguistic medium; and yet they lead to grotesque consequences when literary problems are discussed only with regard to views expressed in the particular language and only with reference to texts and documents in that language. Though in certain problems of artistic style, metre, and even genre, the linguistic differences between the European literatures will be important, it is clear that for many problems of the history of ideas, including critical ideas, such distinctions are untenable; artificial cross-sections are drawn through homogeneous materials, and histories are written concerning ideological echoes by chance expressed in English or German or French. The excessive attention to one vernacular is especially detrimental to the study of medieval literature, since in the Middle Ages Latin was the foremost literary language, and Europe formed a very close intellectual unity. A history of literature during the Middle Ages in England which neglects the vast amount of writings in Latin and Anglo-Norman gives a false picture of England’s literary situation and general culture.This recommendation of comparative literature does not, of course, imply neglecting the study of individual national literatures. Indeed, it is just the problem of ‘nationality’ and of the distinct contributions of the individual nationsstudied with theoretical clarity, the problem has been blurred by nationalistic sentiment and racial theories. To isolate the exact contributions of English literature to general literature, a fascinating problem, might lead to a shift of perspective and an altered evaluation, even of the major figures. Within each national literature there arise similar problems of the exact shares of regions and cities. Such an exaggerated theory as that of Josef Nadler约瑟夫·拿德勒, who professes to be able to discern the traits and characteristics of each German tribe and region and its reflections in literature, should not deter us from the consideration of these problems, rarely investigated with any command of facts and any coherent method. Much that has been written on the role of New England, the Middle East, and the South in the history of American literature, and most of the writings on regionalism, amounts to no more than the expression of pious hopes, local pride, and resentment of centralizing powers. Any objective analysis will have to distinguish questions concerning provenance and setting from questions concerning the actual influence of the landscape and questions of literary tradition and fashion.Problems of ‘nationality’ become especially complicated if we have to decide that literatures in the same language are distinct national literatures, as American and modern Irish assuredly are. Such a question as why Goldsmith高尔德斯密斯, Sterne斯特恩, and Sheridan沙瑞顿do not belong to Irish literature, while Yeats叶芝and Joyce乔伊斯do, needs an answer. Are there independent Belgian, Swiss, and Austrian literatures? It is not very easy to determine the point at which literature written in America ceased to be ‘colonial English’ and became an independent national literature. Is it the mere fact of political independence? Is it the national consciousness of the authors themselves? Is it the use of national subject-matter and ‘local color’地方色彩? Or is it the rise of a definite national literary style?Only when we have reached decisions on these problems shall we be able to write histories of national literature which are not simply geographical or linguistic categories, shall we be able to analyse the exact way in which each national literature enters into European tradition. Universal and national literatures implicate each other. A pervading European convention is modified in each country: there are also centres of radiation in the individual countries, and eccentric and individually great figures who set off one national tradition from the other. To be able to describe the exact share of the one and the other would amount to knowing much that is worth knowing in the whole of literary history.。
比较文学名词解释
名词解释：1、比较文学：比较文学诞生于十九世纪末期，以人文关怀为宗旨，以跨民族、跨语言、跨文化、跨学科的文学研究为手段，通过全球文学的交流、沟通、对话、互溶、互补、共建来谋求改善文化生态和人文环境，为传播新的人文精神和建设人类的多元文化而架桥铺路，从而为实现尊重、理解、宽容、和谐的合理化社会作出贡献的对不同民族的文学进行比较研究、也对文学与其他学科的关系进行比较研究的新兴学科。
2、影响研究：影响研究是比较文学的基本研究类型之一，它是研究不同民族的文学之间相互渗透、影响的史实的研究类型，以影响的超国界存在说、影响的事实联系论、影响的历史意识论、影响研究即对创作的理解论为理论基础，主要包括影响的具体内容、影响的方式和影响的过程等。
其价值在于发掘各民族文学相互影响的史实，还文学发展的本来面目；帮助人们从新的角度认识文学现象，但受制于“事实联系”，研究对象有限；考据费时费力且其成果没有理论价值、普遍意义。
3、流传学：流传学是以放送者为研究起点，以接受者为研究终点，探求一件作品、一位作家、一种文体或者一国文学在国外的成就、声誉、反响的学问。
这种研究范围广泛，但是研究的核心是放送者对接受者的影响。
4、渊源学：渊源学也称源流学，从影响接受的角度研究某个民族的文学的内容与形式的外民族来源，主要包括文学作品的主题、题材、思想、人物、情节、语言、风格及艺术技巧等。
5、媒介学：媒介学是指一国文学对另一国文学，一个作家对另一民族、国家文学产生影响这一事实的途径、方法和手段及其因果关系的研究，包括个人媒介、团体媒介、环境媒介、文字媒介、现代传媒五个方面的内容。
6、译介学：译介学从比较文化的角度出发研究文学翻译，是比较文学的一个分支。
译介学的研究范畴：翻译造成的原文信息的失落、增加、变形现象、翻译文学（翻译中的创造性叛逆）两个方面，指将外国文学译介到本国译本及评介文字。
在比较文学中是指对文学交流中翻译的研究，以前是从媒介学出发，而目前则越来越多是从比较文化的角度出发来对翻译（尤其是文学翻译）和翻译文学进行的研究。
比较文学
分类
比较文学研究，不同国家的学者强调的侧重点各有不同：以梵第根、伽列等为代表的法国学者强调不同民族 文学的影响研究，以韦勒克为代表的美国学者强调不同民族文学的平行研究，以阿历克谢耶夫和日尔蒙斯基为代 表的俄罗斯学者则认为影响研究和平行研究不可分，应该同时并重。
在中国，鲁迅、茅盾、郭沫若等曾广泛比较研究过各国文学的发展，如鲁迅的《摩罗诗力说》、茅盾的《俄 国近代文学杂谈》等。20世纪30年代中国开始介绍外国比较文学的历史和理论。陈铨的《中德文化研究》、钱钟 书的《谈艺录》、朱光潜的《诗论》等，在某个方面对中国比较文学的发展作出了奉献。70年代以来，比较文学 在中国取得了前所未有的新发展，成绩斐然。中国学派强调跨文化研究，大约可以概括或总结出这样一些方法论： “阐发研究”；“异同比较法”；“文化模子寻根法”；“对话研究”；“整合与建构研究”。
比较文学
中国语言文学类分支
01 发展
03 发展史 05 平行研究
目录
02 分类 04 作品影响 06 说法提出
比较文学是以跨民族、跨语言、跨文化与跨学科为比较视域而展开的文学研究，在学科的成立上以研究主体 的比较视域为安身立命的本体，因此强调研究主体的定位，同时比较文学把学科的研究客体定位于国族文学之间 与文学及其他学科之间的三种关系：事实材料关系、美学价值关系、学科交叉关系。
比较文学（comparative literature）一词最早出现于法国学者诺埃尔和拉普拉斯合编的《比较文学教程》 （1816）中，但该著作未涉及它的方法与理论。使这一术语得以流行的，是法国著名的历史学家和文学批评家维 尔曼 （1790～1870）。他于1827年在巴黎大学开设了“18世纪法国作家对外国文学和欧洲思想的影响”的讲座， 并于两年后将讲稿整理，以《18世纪法国文学综览》的书名出版。在讲课和著述中，维尔曼多次使用“比较文 学”、“比较历史”等词语，并从理论和实践上为比较文学提供了范例。1838年，他在出版其讲稿的第三卷序言 中正式使用了“比较文学”这个专门术语，后人因此尊他为“比较文学之父”。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
异化译法：你总不能指望她一下子就抱着你又亲又啃吧？
锅炕连体
形似与神似
形似： “原文字面，原文句法”以及“文字词类”、 “句法构造”、“文法”、“修辞格律”和 “俗语”等 神似： “意义与精神”和“韵味”、”神气”、“情 调”、“气氛”
形神皆似
e.g： On the morning of a fine June day, my first bony little nursling and the last of the ancient Earnshaw stock, was born.（E. Bront Wuthering Heights, Ch.8) 一般译法： 6月份一个阳光明媚的早晨，厄恩肖这个古老世家的最后 一代继承人出生了，这是第一个我亲自喂养的孩子。 较好译法： 6月份一个阳光明媚的早晨，我要抚养的第一个小宝宝， 也是厄恩肖这个古老世家的最后一根苗，出世了。
Miss U. S. A.汉译文《美国小姐》与 《漂亮的三丫头》原文的对比
•重复，排比（插入语的使用）
《漂亮的三丫头》 “我要嫁的是男人，男人” “我很怕，很怕” “我不肯，不敢，也不愿意” “…是自私，是自私啊!” “人啊，人” 《美国小姐》 “好! 我就去试了” “有一天，很冷的一天” “不行，嗯，嗯，不行，不行” “等等，等等” “看啊，…不过，乖乖，这可不是我 的理想” “这一来，啊呀，可翻了天”
Miss U. S. A.汉译文《美国小姐》与 《漂亮的三丫头》原文的对比
句型 《美国小姐》 “你先穿这身衣裳……再报一些你的星象流 年……，还有他们要你说……，这时你从 肩……，接着，……，最后……”。 《漂亮的三丫头》 “后来，因为贪污公款，开除了公职，重新就 业，在炸油条的小食店里干零活。”
平行研究
实例：《舞姬》和《杜十娘怒沉百宝箱》
跨文化研究
实例： 法国波蒙夫人的童话《美女与野兽》与沃尔 特· 迪斯尼的动画片《美女与野兽》进行比较
跨文化研究
实例： 《红色娘子军》
比较文学与翻译的关系
媒介
比较文学中的翻译策略
归化与异化 形似与神似
归化与异化
归化： 以目的语或译文读者为归宿 倾向于用目的语本身的要素替代源语中那些相异的要素，从而使得译 文通俗易懂，将文化差异降到最低。 代表学者：奈达 异化： 以源语或者原文作者为归宿 主张保留源语中与目的语相异的要素，并保持原有的“异国情调” 代表学者：劳伦斯· 韦努蒂 归、异统一： 归化和异化是对立统一，相辅相成的，绝对的归化和绝对的异化都是 不存在的。
《漂亮的三丫头》和Miss U. S. A.
口述实录文学 原作背景 《漂亮的三丫头》与《美国小姐》 Miss U. S. A.与The Pretty Third Daughter
口述实录文学
定义 特点：
句子结构简洁 语言通俗流畅，形象生动 有强烈的生活气息
原作背景
《漂亮的三丫头》选自张辛欣和桑晔合著的， 《北京人——100个北京人的自述》一书。这 是一部口述实录文学作品，在20世纪80年代 是一种教新的文学体例。全书选取100位普通 北京人的口头自述，未作任何修改，全部按录 音实录。 Miss U. S. A. 选自美国作家Studs Terkel的 “American Dream: Lost and Found《美国梦 寻》一书。这也是一部口述实录文学作品。
《漂亮的三丫头》英译本The Pretty Third Daughter与Miss U. S. A.原文 的对比
•虚拟语气、过去完成时的使用使译文显得过 于书面体
The Pretty Third Daughter “…if any of them had kept on after me，I probably would have ended up marrying him． ” 试译为“if one kept on after me，I probably had married him． ”口语中可用过去时代替。 “I hadn„t really liked the boy，it was just curiosity and confusion( 糊涂?) ． ” 试译为“I didn't really like the boy，it was just out of curiosity and ignorance． ”
“It was in my second year at junior middle school that I realized I was pretty． ” 试译为“at my second year in junior school，I realized I was pretty． ” “Some of the class which had been sent down the year before began to chase after me． ” 试译为“Some of the class，came one year before， began to chase after me． ”
平行研究
实例：《舞姬》和《杜十娘怒沉百宝箱》 青年才俊官吏太田丰太郎到柏林留学。一个偶 然的机会他解救了处于困境之中的舞女爱丽丝， 尽管他与爱丽丝之间的交往是清白的，他却被 重伤免职。之后他与爱丽丝同居，艰难度日。 跟随天方伯爵来柏林的相泽谦吉劝说丰太郎离 开爱丽丝回国重走功名之路。奉太郎在矛盾中 苦恼和自责，病中晕倒。在奉太郎病中爱丽丝 从相泽那里得知事情原委而发狂，奉太郎最终 抛弃爱丽丝踏上归国之途。
归化与异化
e.g: You couldn't expect her to throw her arms round'ee, an' to kiss and coll'ee all at once.(T. Hardy. Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Ch. 6) 归化译法：怎么，她哪能一下就把你抱上锅，撮上炕的哪？
《漂亮的三丫头》英译本The Pretty ThirdБайду номын сангаасDaughter与Miss U. S. A.原文 的对比
•句子间缺少相应的连接词，各个句子独立成 句，犹如简单的罗列
The Pretty Third Daughter “I didn't go to kindergarten． I just played with other children in the lane． I spent the whole day in the streets. They weren't too bothered about me at home． ” 试译为“I never went to kindergarten，just played with other children in the lane，spending the whole day in the streets，and they even didn't care about it． ”
比较文学目的
寻求文学发展的共同规律，并为一个国家或民 族提供文学发展的横向借鉴。
比较文学的研究方法
以法国学派推崇的“影响研究” 以美国学派推崇的“平行研究” 以中国学派推崇的“跨文化研究”
影响研究
实例： 日本的古典小说《源氏物语》中，就运用了不 少中国唐代诗人白居易的诗作；我国古典小说 《西游记》中，孙悟空能七十二变，就吸收了 印度佛经中神猴哈奴曼会三十六变的成分，孙 悟空大闹天宫又发展了印度佛经《贤愚经》中 顶生王闹天帝宫殿的故事
比较文学与翻译
吴杰 张艳 朱凯丽
目录
什么是比较文学？ 比较文学的目的、研究方法 比较文学与翻译的关系 比较文学中的翻译策略探讨 Miss U. S. A.汉译文《美国小姐》与《漂亮的 三丫头》原文的对比 《漂亮的三丫头》英译本The Pretty Third Daughter与Miss U. S. A.原文的对比 总结
《漂亮的三丫头》英译本The Pretty Third Daughter与Miss U. S. A.原文 的对比
•与“Miss”相比，译文中频繁地使用“when”， “who”，“if” ,“after”引导的从句,“that”强调句型 和“None of句型
The Pretty Third Daughter
•人物语言——口语化的用词
《美国小姐》 “多带劲，多神气，多有趣 啊” “乱七八糟一大堆” “我傻眼了” “老天爷，日子真难熬啊！ “管这件事的那个女的”， “硬是„” “这人是坏蛋”
Miss U. S. A.汉译文《美国小姐》与 《漂亮的三丫头》原文的对比
•简短的口语化句式
《美国小姐》 《漂亮的三丫头》 “也许是在叫别人吧” “你干什么要写我呢?” “我和别人的想法还会不一样 “不是多才多艺就是了” “这是她们美国梦的一部 吗?” “死了也没什么吧?穷人家嘛!”分啊!”， “现在该怎么办呢?”， “真不能嫁他那钱啊!” “去他的，我才不要呢!”
什么是比较文学?
《译学词典》定义：比较文学是运用比较方法研究 不同民族、不同国家、不同语言之间文学关系，以 及文学与其他艺术形式、意识形态之间关系的学科。 法国比较文学学者Pierre Brunel定义：比较文学是 为了更好地叙述、理解、评价在距离、时间、空间 上相隔遥远的多种文化和语言、即只要他们属于相 同传统，而通过对它们之间类似、类缘、影响关系 的探讨来缩小文学在表现和认识上与其他不同领域 的距离，或者对类似、类缘、影响的事实和文学文 体进行比较的系统方法。
总结
比较文学的真实目的并不是要比较出某个译本的优 劣，而是为文学翻译探索一条新的路子，这种比较可 以帮助译者增强文体翻译的意识，也可以为译文评估 者提供思考问题的方法。