《论语》英译文语篇介入资源的修辞劝说功能

A Corpus-based Study of the Rhetorical Function of Engagement Resources in the Translated Texts of The Analects

本文以《论语》的Arthur Waley译本和刘殿爵译本为研究对象,利用语料库的方法,分析译文语篇评价系统之介入资源作为一种语言和超语言资源是如何帮助译者再现《论语》语篇的修辞性以及实现文本的修辞劝说功能的,同时也尝试发现不同译者在评价系统之介入资源的使用上是否存在共性与差异性。研究发现,介入资源是帮助译者实现语篇修辞劝说功能的重要资源,这些资源的使用有助于观点的表达与同盟的结成,形成了强大的修辞权威,实现了孔子对其弟子的劝说与教诲目的。两译本在介入资源的使用上表现出较多的共性和一定的差异性。差异性主要表现在Waley译文的介入资源使用总量多于刘殿爵译文,两者在使用频率最高的介入资源上不同,刘殿爵译文使用频率最高的是自言之命题陈述资源,Waley译文使用频率最高的是借言之话语紧缩资源,其可能的原因,与译者不同的社会文化背景和译者风格有或多或少的关系;共性主要表现在除了使用频率最高的资源有所不同以外,其他资源的使用无显著差异。并且,介入资源在两种译文语篇中都发挥了重要的修辞说服功能,是一种有效的修辞手段。

This paper makes a corpus-based study of the engagement resources of the appraisal system in the English translated texts of The Analects by Arthur Waley and D. C. Lau. Our purposes are to discover how the engagement resources as linguistic and supra-lin- guistic resources help the translators to display the rhetoricity of the original text and how they help to achieve the purpose of rhetorical persuasion in the translated texts. We also attempt to find out the similarities and differences of the two translated texts concerning the use of engagement resources. The results of the study show that both of the two translated texts make full use of the engagement resources as an effective way to express the philosophical thought of Confucius and make alignment with his disciples and thus achieve persuasion. There are some similarities and differences between the two translated texts. The differences lie in that there are more uses of the engagement resources in Waley＇s translation than in D. C. Lau＇s, and concerning the most frequently used sub-category, proposition of monogloss is most frequently used in D. C. Lau＇s translation while contract of heterogloss is most frequently used in Waley＇s translation. The possible reasons may be related to their different cultural backgrounds and different styles of translation. The similarities include that except the differences in the most frequently used sub-category, the other sub-categories are used similarly in the two translations and the more important similarity is that they are effective in helping to achieve the rhetorical function of persuasion in the translated texts.