翻译研究文化转向以来,翻译日益被认为不仅仅是两种语言间的转换活动,而是受文本外多种因素的影响。本论文运用翻译研究文化学派的相关理论,对胡仲持、张万里和张铁笙、王逢振几位译者的《大地》中译本与源文本进行跨语言对照以及对三...翻译研究文化转向以来,翻译日益被认为不仅仅是两种语言间的转换活动,而是受文本外多种因素的影响。本论文运用翻译研究文化学派的相关理论,对胡仲持、张万里和张铁笙、王逢振几位译者的《大地》中译本与源文本进行跨语言对照以及对三个译本进行历时对比,运用描写的方法,探讨了《大地》产生不同译文风貌的背后原因,解释了时代背景与译者及译本之间的关联,分析了时代背景对译文风貌的影响,发现译者不是在机械被动地复制源本,而是会根据自己的目的产生符合他们目的的译文。Since the cultural turn in translation studies, translation has been increasingly considered not just a conversion activity between two languages, but is also influenced by a variety of factors outside the text. This paper uses the relevant theories of the cultural school of translation studies to conduct a cross-language comparison of the Chinese translations of The Good Earth by translators, Hu Zhongchi, Zhang Wanli, Zhang Tiesheng, and Wang Fengzhen, and the source text, as well as a diachronic comparison of the three translations. Using a descriptive method, it explores the reasons behind the different styles of translations of The Good Earth, explains the relationship between the historical background and the translators and translations, analyzes the impact of the historical background on the style of the translation, and finds that the translators are not mechanically and passively copying the source text, but will produce translations that meet their purposes according to their own purposes.展开更多
文摘翻译研究文化转向以来,翻译日益被认为不仅仅是两种语言间的转换活动,而是受文本外多种因素的影响。本论文运用翻译研究文化学派的相关理论,对胡仲持、张万里和张铁笙、王逢振几位译者的《大地》中译本与源文本进行跨语言对照以及对三个译本进行历时对比,运用描写的方法,探讨了《大地》产生不同译文风貌的背后原因,解释了时代背景与译者及译本之间的关联,分析了时代背景对译文风貌的影响,发现译者不是在机械被动地复制源本,而是会根据自己的目的产生符合他们目的的译文。Since the cultural turn in translation studies, translation has been increasingly considered not just a conversion activity between two languages, but is also influenced by a variety of factors outside the text. This paper uses the relevant theories of the cultural school of translation studies to conduct a cross-language comparison of the Chinese translations of The Good Earth by translators, Hu Zhongchi, Zhang Wanli, Zhang Tiesheng, and Wang Fengzhen, and the source text, as well as a diachronic comparison of the three translations. Using a descriptive method, it explores the reasons behind the different styles of translations of The Good Earth, explains the relationship between the historical background and the translators and translations, analyzes the impact of the historical background on the style of the translation, and finds that the translators are not mechanically and passively copying the source text, but will produce translations that meet their purposes according to their own purposes.
