副文本视域下译者意向性差异研究——基于理雅各与冯友兰《庄子》英译本对比分析

Translators’ Differentiated Intentionality Presented in Paratexts—A Comparative Study on the English Renditions of Zhuangzi by Legge and Feng Yu-Lan

《庄子》又名《南华经》,是战国中后期庄子及其后学所著道家学说汇总,内容丰富,博大精深,在中国文学史上占据着重要位置。同时也是中国哲学典籍奠基之作。因此,《庄子》英译是中国文化“走出去”的重要载体。《庄子》英译已有100多年的历史。百余年间,国外传教士、海外汉学家、华裔学者与中国学者等译者群体为英语世界贡献了二十多个《庄子》英译本。目前的研究中鲜少有关于《庄子》中国本土译本与汉学家译本的对比研究,且大多数研究有关于译者主体性、译者声音和译者风格,涉及译者意向性的相关研究甚少。意向性源自中世纪学院,是哲学领域的重要概念。简而言之,人头脑中的想法会影响实际行动。意向性包括主体、客体和活动。翻译是一种跨文化交流活动,以意义转换为方式,意义再生为任务。译者作为翻译活动的主体,是翻译生态链的重要部分。此外,副文本与正文紧密相连,是正文的补充内容,充当着作品、作者、出版社和读者之间的纽带。副文本也有调节作用,分为内副文本和外副文本。内副文本位于文本内,包括封面、题目、序言、注释、出版信息、附录、插画等。外副文本是译者和出版商给读者的相关信息总结,例如采访、翻译注释和书评。同时,副文本形式多样,非常灵活,能更好体现出译者意向性。因此,本文选取具有代表性的理雅各译本和冯友兰译本作为研究对象,对比分析学者型译者和致用型译者在翻译活动中所呈现的意向性差异。研究发现,二者由于身份背景和所处社会文化背景的不同,呈现的翻译意向性也存在较大差异。理雅各作为传教士兼汉学家,致力于系统研究中国传统文化思想,呈现“学术型”翻译意向性,而冯友兰作为教育学家兼哲学家,致力于教授汉语,呈现“致用型”翻译意向性。差异化意向性的言语表征层在于副文本的四个维度,即标题、目录、序跋和注释。理雅各采用“深度翻译”策略,副文本内容详实准确,读者对中国文化有更深刻的认识,服务于跨文化思想传播的目的。而冯友兰采用“浅描”翻译策略,副文本内容简单,以期读者尽快理解,服务教学任务。究竟孰优孰劣,应充分考虑源语文本的特点、目标语读者的需求、翻译行为之目的。本研究以期为典籍副文本翻译实践研究提供实证案例,丰富相关翻译理论与实践研究,同时为《庄子》英译及其它典籍英译做一些基础性的研究,同时给翻译实践和译作评论提供有益的借鉴。

Zhuangzi, also known as Nanhua Jing, is a collection of Taoist theories written by Zhuangzi and his later studies in the middle and late Warring States period. It is extensive and profound, rich in content, and occupies an important position in the history of Chinese literature. It is also the foundation work of Chinese philosophical classics. Therefore, the translation of Zhuangzi is an important carrier of Chinese “go global”. The English translation of Zhuangzi has a history of more than 100 years. Over the past one hundred years, translators, including foreign missionaries, overseas sinologists, Chinese scholars and Chinese scholars, have contributed more than 20 English translations of Zhuangzi to the English-speaking world. There is currently a lack of comparative research on the Chinese domestic translations of Zhuangzi and those by sinologists. Most studies are about translator’s subjectivity, translator’s voice and translator’s style, but there are few studies about translator’s intentionality, or it just studies translator intentionality as a sub-category. Intentionality, which originated from medieval scholasticism, is a crucial concept in the field of philosophy of mind, and a kind of directionality of the subject’s mental state to the object. In short, the thoughts in one’s head will exert an effect on practical activities. Intentionality consists of subject, object and activity. Translation is a cross-cultural communication activity, which takes symbol conversion as a means and meaning regeneration as a task. As the main body of translation activities, the translator is an important part of the translation ecological chain. In addition, the paratext is closely related to and complementary to the main text, acting as a link between the work, the author, the publisher and the reader. The paratext also has a coordinating function. There are two types of internal and external paratexts. The internal subtext is the information presented inside the text, including the cover, title, preface, notes, publication information, appendix, illustration, etc. The external paratexts is a summary of relevant information provided by the translator and publisher to the reader, such as interviews, translation notes and reviews. Meanwhile, the paratext has various forms and flexibility, which can better show the translator’s intentionality. Therefore, this paper chooses the representative paratext translation by James Legge and Feng Yu-lan as the research object, making a comparative analysis of the differences of intentionality between academic and pragmatic translators in translation activities. The study found that due to their distinct identity and social cultural background, the translation intentionality presented by them was also not similar. As a missionary and sinologist, James Legge is dedicated to studying traditional Chinese culture systematically, exhibiting the “academic” intentionality of translation, while Feng Yu-lan, as an educator and philosopher, devotes himself to impart knowledge about traditional Chinese culture, presenting the “pragmatic” intentionality of translation. The linguistic representation of differentiated translation intentionality lies in the four dimensions of the paratexts, including the title, content, preface and annotation. James Leege uses “thick description” translation strategy with the translated paratext content detailed and accurate, so as to enable readers to have a deep understanding of Chinese culture and serve for the purpose of cross-cultural thought dissemination. While Feng Yu-lan uses “thin description” translation strategy with the translated sub-text content simple and concise, so as to enable readers to understand as soon as possible and serve for the education. To determine which one is better or worse, we should take into account the characteristics of the source text, the needs of the target language readers and the purpose of translation. The study aims to provide empirical case studies for the practice of translating paratexts of Chinese classics and enrich translation theories and practices. It also does some basic research for the English translation of Zhuangzi and other classics, and provides useful reference for translation practice and translation criticism.