从评价理论的角度分析译者的主体性

从评价理论的角度分析译者的主体性
［Abstract］The subjectivity of the translator is the subjective initiative, which the translator manifests in translation on the basis of respecting the source text. It includes not only the creative betrayal of the object of in the ST but also the cultural consciousness, human quality and aesthetic creativity of the translator who wants to meet his purpose in translating. In addition, in practice, the subjectivity is embodied by means of the translator’s understanding and principle of translation. The paper attempts to analyze the subjectivity in poetry translation from the perspective of the appraisal theory.
［Key words］translator’s subjectivity,appraisal theory,poetry translation
I. Introduction
Translation activity is a process, during which source language is put into target language and then mix it into the culture of the target language. In this process, translators are operators and executors and they own the practical ability to convert the source language into target language. In this case, we may consider the translator as the subject of translation in a narrow sense, and the original author, the translator and the target reader as the translation subjects in a broad sense. (Xu Jun, 2003) We need to
consider the roles of all the subjects in a broad sense in the translating process, instead of focusing only on the role of the translator. It is clear that the translator’s subjectivity and translation’s subjectivity are not the same. The present paper will focus on translator’s subjectivity.
Ⅱ. Literary Review
2.1 Research background
In 1981, in Beyond the Process: Literary Translation in Literature and Literary Theory, Lefevere argued that literary system do not occur in a vacuum. He begins in the article not just look at lexical shifts and the introduction of literary devices in translation, but to also ask questions about the ideological pressures on the translator and strategies that the translator has for influencing the intellectual milieu. (Gentzler, 2004: 137) In order to show how the ideological component limits literary discourse, he introduced the concept of the “refracted text”, by which he means “texts that have been processed for a certain audience (children, for example), or adapted to a certain poetics or a certain ideology.” (Gentzler, 2004: 137) Translator’s subjectivity is highlighted in the above expression, in order to process some information, subjective factors, such as the translator’s personality, experience, competence and etc must be involved.
Another scholar we must mention is Lawrence Venuti contributed a lot to making the invisible translators visible and making them go from the background to foreground. As for invisible, he claims that the translators tend to be self-effacing in their work, denying their own voice in favor of that of the author/or the prevailing styles in the receiving culture, and that in translation criticism, scholars tend to ignore the decisions and mediations of the translators, commenting instead as if they have direct access to the original author. Translators are judged to be successful when they read “fluently”, giving the appearance that they have not been translated (Venuti, 1992: 3-5). Instead, Venuti finds every act of translation transformative and creative, seldom transparent, invariably interpretive. Translations are complex texts full of intertextual connotations and allusions containing multiple discourses and linguistic materials, giving translators various choices to support or resist predominant literary and ideological views (Gentzler, 2004: 38).
2.2 Current situation in China
Discussions on Translator’s subjectivity began in China in 1990s and flourished later. In 1992, Wang Shouren published an article On Translator Being Creator in the Chinese Translator’s Journal. He claimed that we consider translator as a creator because he created a new “language reality” according to source text. (Wang Shouren, 1992: 45-46)
Yang Wuneng (2003:10-13), indicated that translator should be regarded as the subject of translation just as writer is the subject of writing. And that translator’s right should be respected and protected. At last, the focus of translation study should be shifted from the discussion of principle, criteria and strategies to the translator’s subjectivity.
Another important person in this field is Xu Jun. In 2003, he published his article Creative Treason and the Establishment of Translational Subjectivity (Xu Jun, 2003: 6-11), in which he discussed the dialectical relationship of “fidelity” and “treason”. He noted that stupid “fidelity” might lead to real “treason”, while clever “treason” might cause true “fidelity”. The value of “creative treason” means that we acknowledge the translator’s creativity. The translator’s subjective awareness refers to a kind of self-conscious personal awareness and a kind of creative awareness. Xu Jun continued to discuss the question “who is the subject of translation?” in this article. He argued that as for the definition of the subjectivity of translation, we must take the subjective role of the author and the reader into account, but it was the translator who existed in the central position as a subject.
On the basis of former research, we may know that translator is the subject of translation. Besides, translator plays a dynamic, creative and initiative role in translation. And that, to some degree, the version of
translation is determined by the translator’s individual likeness, preference, personality, experience, competence and and so on. At last, translator’s subjectivity cannot be displayed freely, and the translator must show “adequate respect to the source text”.
Ⅲ. The Analysis of the Translator’s Subjectivity with the
Appraisal Theory
3.1 An introduction to appraisal theory
Appraisal theory is concerned with the linguistic resources by which a text/speaker comes to express, negotiate and naturalize particular inter-subjective and ultimately ideological positions. Within this broad scope, the theory is concerned more particularly with the language of evaluation, attitude and emotion, and with a set of resources that explicitly position a text’s proposals and propositions interpersonally, which may be put into the analysis of translation.
3.2 The analysis of translator’s subjectivity in poetry translation with the appraisal theory
《天净沙·秋思》
马致远
枯藤老树昏鸦，
小桥流水人家，
古道西风瘦马。

夕阳西下，
断肠人在天涯。

Autumn
Crows hovering over rugged old trees wreathed with rotted vine-the day is about done. Yonder is a tiny bridge over a sparkling stream, and on the far bank, a pretty little village. But the traveler has to go on down this ancient road, the west wind moaning, his bony horse groaning, trudging towards the sinking sun, farther and farther away from home.
（Tr. by Weng Xianliang)
Professor Weng adopted paraphrase to translate the original verse into prose in English, paying no attention to the equivalence of the words and the length and sequence of the clauses. In his version, “withered vine (枯藤)”, “old tree (老树)”, “crows at dusk (昏鸦)”, “small bridge (小桥)”, “running water (流水)”, “cottages (人家)”, “old path (古道)”, “west wind (西风)” and “lean horse (瘦马)” were translated into “rotten vine”, “rugged old trees”, “crows”, “a tiny bridge”, “a sparkling stream”, “a
pretty little village”, “this ancient road”, “the west wind” and “bony horse” respectively, which conv ey the fundamental meaning of their counterparts. Obviously, the order of these images is disturbed in his version. In addition, the images in the original poem were pieced together without any conjunctions, which gives readers great space to imagine, while professor Weng added many words and phrases between them in his version, such as “hovering over”, “wreathed with”, “the day is about done”, “yonder is”, “over”, “and on the far bank”, “but”, “has to go on down”, “this”, “moaning”, “his groaning”, “trudging towards”, “farther and farther”.
From the perspective of appraisal theory, it is concerned with how writers/ speakers construe for themselves particular authorial identities or personae, with how they align or disalign themselves with actual or potential respondents and with how they construct for their texts an intended or ideal audience. Professor Weng’s version is in accordance with the translator’s understanding of the artistic conception of the original poem and will facilitate the target readers’understanding and appreciation of the artistic conception of the Chinese classical poem.
Ⅳ. Conclusion
To summarize, the paper attempts to probe the subjectivity from the perspective of the appraisal theory. Translation is a secondary creation, so
of course, also an art. It is definite, first, that to translate is not to “copy”. It is, instead, a kind of creation by the translator, in which the translator gives a creation after he converts the thoughts and feelings in the original into those of his own. What makes this different from the creation by the original author is that the restriction of the original work is imposed upon the translator, but he has to employ his creative power, under such conditions, to give the original creation a new life.
【References 】
［1］Gentzler, Edwin. 2004. Contemporary Translation Theories ［M］.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[2] Lefevere, Andre. Beyond the Process: Literary Translation in Literature and Literary.
[3] Venuti, Lawrence. 1992. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology［M］.London: Routledge.
[4] Venuti, Lawrence. 2004. The Translation Studies Reader ［M］.New York: Routledge.
[5] 陈淑芳.评价系统与词汇产出［J］.山东外语教学，2002（6）.
[6] 戴凡.格律论和评价系统在语篇中的文体意义［J］.中山大学学报，2002（5）.
[7] 李战子.话语的人际意义研究［M］.上海外语教育出版社，2002.
[8] 刘承宇.英语报刊语篇评价系统与批评性阅读［J］.山东师范大学外语学院学报，2002（4）.
[9] 王守仁.论译者是创造者［J］.中国翻译，1992 （3）.
[10] 王振华，2001. 评价系统及其运作—系统功能语言学的新发展［J］.外国语，2001（6）.
[11] 谢天振.译者的诞生与原作者的‘死亡’［J］.中国比较文学，2002（4）.
[12] 谢天振.译介学［M］.上海外语教育出版社，1999.
[13] 许钧.“创造性的叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立［J］.中国翻译，2003（1）.
[14] 严复.天演论·译例言［C］//翻译研究论文集（1894-1948）.外语教育研究出版社，1984.
[15] 杨武能.再谈文学翻译的主体［J］.中国翻译，2003 （3）.。