语料库批评译学视角下《边城》三英译本对比研究  

A Contrastive Study of Three English Versions of Biancheng from the Perspective of Corpus-Based Critical Translation Studies

作　　者：刘喃 张瑞华[1] 

机构地区：[1]天津科技大学,天津

出　　处：《现代语言学》2023年第1期145-157,共13页Modern Linguistics

摘　　要：本文在语料库批评译学的理论框架下,从人物指称、文化表达、名物化、被动结构、情态动词等方面对《边城》三英译本进行对比分析,考察这些译本中所蕴含的意识形态因素。研究发现,在人物指称和文化表达的翻译方面:金隄译本主要采用归化、省略和直译的翻译策略;戴译本倾向于使用异化加省略的翻译策略;金介甫译本主要采用异化翻译策略,辅以归化和音译。在名物化、被动结构和情态动词的使用方面:金隄译本使用被动结构最多;金介甫译本倾向于将原文中的形容词转化为名词来刻画人物形象;戴译本使用情态动词最少,但是对事物断言或判断更加明确,而金隄和金介甫译本则倾向于使用中、低量值情态动词来描述或评价事件。研究表明,这些差异与译者所处的社会环境、译者的文化身份、翻译理念和目的等方面密切相关。Under the theoretical framework of corpus-based critical translation studies, this study examines three English translations of Biancheng in terms of character referents, cultural expressions, nominalizations, passive structures, and modal verbs, to explore the hidden ideologies. This study finds that in translating characters and cultural expressions, Ching Ti’s version mainly adopts the translation strategies of domestication, omission, and literal translation;Gladys Yang’s version tends more to use foreignization plus omission;Kinkley’s version mainly uses foreignization, supplemented by domestication and transliteration. For the use of nominalizations, passive structures, and modal verbs: Ching Ti’s version uses the most passive structures;Kinkley’s version tends to transform the original adjectives into the nouns to describe characters;Gladys Yang’s version uses the least modal verbs, making more clear assertions or judgments, while the other two versions use more median and low-valued modal verbs to describe or evaluate events. It shows that these differences are closely related to the translator’s social environment, cultural identity, translation philosophy, and purposes etc.

关 键 词：语料库批评译学 意识形态 《边城》 

分 类 号：H31[语言文字—英语]