上海海事大学SHANGHAI MARITIME UNIVERSITY 硕士学位论文MASTER DISSERTATION论文题目：《红字》两种中译本的对比研究学科专业：外国语言学及应用语言学作者姓名：指导教师：教授完成日期：二○○九年六月论文独创性声明本人声明所呈交的论文是我个人在导师指导下进行的研究工作及取得的研究成果。

论文中除了特别加以标注和致谢的地方外，不包含其他机构已经发表或撰写过的研究成果。

其他同志对本研究的启发和所做的贡献均已在论文中作了明确说明并表示了谢意。

作者签名：____________ 日期：____________论文使用授权声明本人同意上海海事大学有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，即：学校有权保留送交论文的复印件，允许论文被查阅和借阅；学校可以上网公布论文的全部或部分内容，可以采用影印、缩印或其他复制手段保存论文。

保密的论文在解密后遵守本规定。

作者签名：__________ 导师签名：__________ 日期：___________A Comparative Study of the Two Chinese Versions ofThe Scarlet LetterByUnder the Supervision ofProfessorA Thesis Submitted to the College of Foreign Languages ofShanghai Maritime Universityin Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the MA DegreeShanghai Maritime UniversityJune, 2009AcknowledgementsI would like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to all those who offered me great help and valuable suggestions in composing the thesis.First of all, my deepest gratitude and respect go to my supervisor, Professor , who devoted much time and energy to this thesis, offering invaluable suggestions and inspiring guidance, and spending his precious time polishing my paper. Without his continuous encouragement, generous help and concern, this thesis would not have been completed.I’m also indebt ed to all the teachers who have taught me during my two-year study, particularly to the following Professors: for their thought-provoking and illuminating lectures，which will benefit me a lot all my life.Last but not least, gratitude is extended to my beloved families. Their warm support and unreserved affection have made possible the accomplishment of this thesis, and helped me go out of the difficult personal circumstances.摘要传统译论强调原文和作者，而忽略了对译者和译文的研究。

译者是翻译过程中的一个重要因素。

译者的翻译动机，翻译策略，文化立场和个人审美观念等对译文会产生重大的影响。

直到二十世纪七十年代的“文化转向”，人们才开始注意到了译者, 从而开拓了翻译研究的新空间，翻译主体研究得到了应有的重视，译者的特殊文化身份和翻译主体地位逐渐突显了出来。

本文从译者主体性的角度出发，通过对比美国小说《红字》的两个中译本的差异，试图分析和探讨在特定的社会、文化、历史背景下译者主体性对译本的影响。

本论文主要由以下三章组成:第一章对传统翻译观进行理论回顾，提出传统翻译理论对译者的态度和对译者地位的忽视，并简单介绍翻译研究的“文化转向”，以及在这种转向的影响下翻译界对译者的地位以及译者主体性的认识。

第二章简要介绍了《红字》的内容、风格，及其译本的大概情况，为后面的比较研究提供了相关的背景知识。

第三章根据上述的翻译标准，主要从词汇、句法和风格特色三个方面对《红字》两种中译本进行了系统的比较研究。

通过对《红字》两个中译本的比较分析，我们可以推断出译本的差异在很大程度上是由于译者的翻译原则和翻译策略的不同，是受译者主体性的影响。

在进行文学评论时,要更多地关注译者及译者的社会、历史和文化的背景,深化对译者主体性的研究。

关键词: 译者主体性;文化转向;《红字》AbstractTraditional translation studies gave priority to the source text and the original author, neglecting the importance of the target text and the translator. The translator is the most crucial factor in translation. His/her purpose, strategies, methods and aesthetic taste greatly influence the formation of the target text.It was not until the “cultural turn” in the 1970s that people began to notice the significance of the translator. With the "cultural turn" in translation studies, proper and increasing attention has been paid to the cultural identity and subject status of the translator.In view of all this, this thesis is a case study of the two Chinese translations of The Scarlet Letter and tries to explore the issue of how the translator is involved in the translation process and thus influences the target translation texts under different social and historical circumstances.This thesis consists of three chapters. Chapter one examines the marginalization of the translator in the traditional translation studies, and then introduces the change of the translator's status in translation history and the studies of the translator's role since the "cultural turn" began in the 1970s. The second chapter makes a general survey of the novel so as to offer some background information. This chapter begins with a brief introduction to the novel and its profound theme. It is followed by the discussion of characteristics of Hawthorne’ language style displayed in this novel. Chapter three makes a systematic and detailed comparison of the two Chinese versions, mainly from the aspects of semantics, syntax and style.In the light of the analysis, we can get the point that the differences between the translations mainly lie in the differences of their translators, whose translation strategies are greatly influenced and constrained by their internal factors and external factors. More attention should be paid to the translator and the social, historical and cultural background in which he/she carries out his/her work when we are making literary criticism.Key Words: the translator's subjectivity;the cultural turn;The Scarlet LetterContentsIntroduction (8)Chapter One (11)An Introduction to Translator’s Subjectivity in Literary Translation (11)1. 1 Traditional Views on Translation (11)1.1.1 Traditional Translation Theories in the West (11)1.1.2 Traditional Translation Theories in China (15)1.2 Cultural Turn of Translation in the West (19)1.3 Connotation of the Translator’s Subjectivity (23)1.3.1 Subject in Translation (24)1.3.2 Subjectivity in Translation (25)1.4 The Display of the Translator’s Subjectivity (27)1.4.1 Translator’s Subjectiv ity Displayed Beyond Translation Operation (27)1.4.2 Translator’s Subjectivity Displayed in Translating Process (29)1.4.3 Translat or’s Subjectivity as the Author of Recreation (33)1.4.4 The Choice of Translation Strategies (33)1.5 Constrains on the Translator’s Subjectivity (36)1.5.1 Cultural Factors (37)1.5.2 Social Environment (37)1.5.3 The Constraints of the Target Reader and the Translator (38)1.5.4 Language Competence (40)Chapter Two (41)An Introduction to The Scarlet Letter and Its Two Chinese Versions (41)2.1 An Introduction to Nathaniel Hawthorne (41)2.1.1 Nathaniel Hawthorne’ life (42)2.1.2 Hawthorne’s Stylistic features (45)2.2 A General Survey of The Scarlet Letter (48)2.2.1 The Plot of The Scarlet Letter (48)2.2.2 Themes in The Scarlet Letter (52)2.3 A Brief Introduction to the Two Chinese Versions (54)Chapter Three A Comparative Study of the Two Chinese Versions (58)3.1 Lexicon (58)3.1.1 Collocative Meaning (59)3.1.2 Conceptual Meaning (61)3.1.3 Connotative Meaning (63)3.1.4 Affective Meaning (64)3.2 Syntax (66)3.2.1 Long Sentence (68)3.2.2 Rhetorical Devices (69)3.3 Stylistic Features (76)Conclusion (83)Bibliography (85)IntroductionDespite the fact that translation is almost as old as languages, few traditional translation theories view the translator as being independent. Instead, they regard the translator as a supporting role without subjectivity. The translator’s subj ectivity has been neglected for a long time. It was not until the “cultural turn” in the 1970s that people began to notice the significance of the translator. The current trend of translation studies has turned to the study of the subjects in translation, especially to the study of subjectivity of the translator who plays an indispensable role in translation.The translator’s subjectivity refers to the fact that the translator demonstrates initiative in translation activities. And its basic characteristics are the translator’s conscious cultural awareness, his/her cultural character, and his/her cultural and aesthetic creativity (Zha ＆Tian，2003:22). In actual process of translation, translators will find themselves usually in a dilemma: faithfully reproducing the language form of the original on one hand, and adjusting the target text to the expectation of target receivers on the other. It is impossible for the translator to translate objectively without any influence of his own cultural background, pre-understanding or prejudice, aesthetic tendency, etc. The translator, in the process of translating, will inevitably display his subjectivity, consciously or unconsciously. “No translator can avoid a certain degree of personal involvement in his work.” (Nida, 1964:154) Faithfulness to the original was once considered the first rule in the history of translation in China as well as in the West. Yan Fu established the triple translation criteria of “Faithfulness, Expressiveness, and Elegance”, which have influence d the Chinesecontemporary translation studies. Similarly the notion of equivalence has been put forward as the fundamental criterion in the western TS. Hence the translator is supposed to be an invisible and “subservient, transparent filter” (Susan Bassne t, 1996:22). The central ideas of the traditional translation theories focus on the original sender and the transmission of language. This often leads to the neglect of the translation and the translator, and translation literatures are also excluded from the history of literature. Although some scholars admit that translation is a creative activity, they still maintain that it is a parasitical art and cannot compare with the original in terms of artistic creation and the literary value. The traditional translation theories do have reasonable aspects; however, if we only study translation from the point of “faithfulness”, we will not be able to appreciate the significance of the translator and his/her cultural creativity. Therefore, translation studies should focus on various levels of research, and more attention should be paid to the subjectivity of the translator.Within the theoretical framework of translator’s subjectivity theory, this thesis tries to make a comparative analysis about the two Chinese versions of The Scarlet Letter. It intends to examine how the translator is stimulated and limited by his/her own subjectivity and how the attention to the translator’s subjectivity contributes to the understanding and evaluation of literary translations.The thesis consists of three chapters. The first gives a brief introduction to translator’s subjectivity theory and its application in literary translation. The second chapter introduces The Scarlet Letter, the author and the two Chinese versions. Chapter Three, the main body of the thesis, offers a detailed comparison of the two Chinese versions (One is by Han Shiheng , and the other is Yao Naiqiang ) to demonstrate what and how to transfer the original into thetarget language text, first in terms of lexicon and syntax, then in terms of style. The purpose of the study is not to identify errors in the translated versions but to intend to gain an insight into literary translation studies.Chapter OneAn Introduction to Translator’s Subjectiv ity in Literary Translation 1. 1 Traditional Views on Translation1.1.1 Traditional Translation Theories in the WestTranslation has existed ever since the ancient times. Various criteria and principles governing translation have been put forward by translation theorists. In the West, George Steiner, divides the literature on the theory, practice and history of translation into four periods.The first period extends from the statements of Cicero and Horace on translation up to the publication of Alexander Fraser Tytler's Essay on the Principles of Translation issued in London in 1792 and Friedrich Schleiermacher's decisive essay Ueber dieverschiedenen Methoden des Uebersetzens (On the Different Methods of Translating) of 1813. The central characteristic o f this period is that of “immediate empirical focus” (Steiner, 2001:248). The ancient translation theorists were concerned about creating dynamic and non-literal versions of the original works. Their translation theories were mainly about translation methods or translation criteria.Cicero, the first translation theorist in the west, set the terms of “free”& “word- for- word” translation. He claimed that translation shouldn’t be constrained to the words of the original text but pay attention to the thought; comply with the norms and features of the target language rather than adopt the very literal translation sentence by sentence (Zhang Zeqian,1994). Cicero once stated: “I saw that to employ the same expressions profited me nothing, while to employ other s was a positive hindrance…I not only foun d myself using the best words, and yet quite familiar ones, but also coining by analogy certain words such as would be new to our people, provided only they were appropriate.” ( Robinson，1997: 7) He also said: “If I render word for word, the result will so und uncouth, and if compelled by necessity I alter anything in the order or wording, I shall seem to have departed from the function of a translator.” (Bassnett, 2004: 49)St Jerome believed that on condition that the original meaning is reserved, the translation should comply with the rhythm and various features of the target language. He also claimed that the translator should regard the thoughts and ideas in the original text as slaves and transplant them directly into their own language as a conqueror with privilege (Schulte, 1992:12). He advocates literal translation of Holy Scripture and dynamic translation of literary texts. With this advocacy, he introduced “the first major shift in western translation theory” (Robinson，1997:23). He maintained the major terms of source text and target text, original meaning and translated meaning, the concepts of literal and dynamic translation. An explicit consequence of his declaration was an emphasis on interpreting the original meaning “correctly in order to reproduce it properly” (Gentzler, 1993: 95).In 1791, Professor of history, Tytler, advanced three basic principles in his book The Principles of Translation:“A: the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.B: the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original.C: the translation should have all the ease of the original composition.”The three principles that were abided by scrupulously by many followers were also to follow the lead of the original work ( Bassnett Susan, 2004).Friedrich Schleiermacher proposed the creation of a separate sub-language for use in translated literature only. In his opinion, while translating, the translator has only two choices: to“ (1) either dist urb the writer as little as possible and move the reader in his direction, or (2) disturb the reader as little as possible and move the writer in his direction” (Robinson，1997: 228-229). Here, Schleiermacher advocated another category of translation methods: the former foreignization and the latter domestication, and he himself preferred the former. His classification of translation methods has great influence on successive generations of translators.Goethe and Matthew Arnold, representative scholars in the second period according to the division by George Steiner, claim that the translator must focus on the source language text primarily, and must serve that text with complete commitment. The target language reader must be brought to the source language text through the means of the translation. They emphasize the importance of faithfulness to the text.The publication of the first papers on machine translation in the 1940s marked the beginning of the third period, according to Steiner’s division, which is characterized by the introduction of structural linguistics and communication theory into the study of translation. Steiner's fourth period, coexisting with the third, has its origins in the early 1960s and is characterized by “a reversion to hermeneutic,almost metaphysical inquires into translation and interpretation” (Steiner, 2001:250). During these two periods of time, many importanttranslation theorists set out to explore the relationship between language, culture and translation.Noam Chomsky's transformational-generative grammar influenced the translation theory. As Mary Snell-Homby explains (2001:41), “In this view translation is a ‘recording’ or change of surface structure in representation of the–non-linguistic and ultimately universal–deep str ucture underlying it.” Jakobson, Halliday, Eugene Nida and Peter Newmark take a linguistic approach to translation. Their studies of translation have given a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in the West and China.Jakobson argued that words should be seen within their (arbitrary) semiotic context, and that “the grammatical pattern of a language (as opposed to its lexical stock) determines those aspects of each experience that must be expressed in the given languag e” (Venuti, 2000:114). In the 1960s, Halliday’s Cohesion in English(1976) and An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985) help people to better understand the English language and the translation of it on a textual level. Eugene Nida reformulates the problem of translation in terms of types of equivalence. He claims that “the present direction is toward increasing emphasis on dynamic equivalences” (1964:160). Nida takes the notion of “equivalence” to mean that “translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” (Nida & Tabber, 1969:12). He further concludes that “absolute equivalence in translating is never possible” (ibid.,1984:14). Nida also suggests the “basic requirements” of a translation: 1. making sense; 2. conveying the spirit and manner of the original; 3. having a natural and easyform of expression; 4. producing a similar response(1964:164). Newmark(1981:39) prefers the terms semantic and communicative translation. Semantic translation attempts “to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original”, which is less extreme than formal e quivalence and therefore conforms more closely to a common translation strategy.After the review of the traditional translation theories in the west, we can draw such a conclusion that the early translation theorists’ main concerns were translation method s and criteria. Their theories were mainly text-centered or author-centered. They did not pay enough attention to the role the translator plays in translation. The translator is subordinate to the author and the original work. His own creativity and subjectivity is depressed and he can only imitate every move of the author. Therefore translation studies in that time treated only the translator’s translation methods and practical skills, which are, to some extent, static. Lawrence Venuti (1995:8) says, “The translator’s shadowy existence in Anglo-American culture is further registered, and maintained, in the ambiguous and unfavorable legal status of translation, both in copyright law and in actual contractual arrangements.” Before the “cultural turn” the subj ectivity of the translator was still a marginal subject in translation studies and the important role he plays in translation was still ignored, which is also a case in China's translation field.1.1.2 Traditional Translation Theories in ChinaTranslation which has contributed greatly to the development of culture has a very longhistory in the human civilization. China has a very long history of translation. In this long history of translation, many Chinese scholars won their reputation as famous translators as well as important translation theorists. They gave their precious opinions on translation, put forward translation methods, or laid down translation criteria for others to follow. It is well-known that there were three major waves of translation in Chinese translation history: the translation of Buddhist scripture from the Han Dynasty to the Northern Song Dynasty, the scientific translation in the Ming and Qing Dynasties and the social science and the literary translation around the May 4th Movement of 1919. Although the three climaxes of translation have had great impacts on the development of Chinese culture, most of the foreign culture was only used as a tool of “cultural filtering and appropriation” (Zha & Tian, 2003).The first major translation period in China is the translation of Buddhist scriptures from the 2nd to the 10th century, and the focus of translation studies was the dispute between literal translation and liberal translation. “Accuracy and smoothness” were taken as criteria for guiding the translation of Buddhist scriptures. These may be considered primitive translation theories in China, and also the basis of modern translation theories in China. Translation techniques, principles or criteria preoccupied the attention of translators in traditional Chinese studies while the translator’s subjectivity was neglected. What’s more, pious worship of the Buddhist scriptures led translators to attach much importance to the original text. This situation didn’t change until the early period of Modern China mainly in novel translation.The second wave of translation occurred six hundred years after the first wave, which lasted from the early seventeenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century. It was characterized by the booming of science translation for the purpose of invigorating thecountry. Therefore, translation was practiced for its social functions. Particularly from the early nineteenth century, translation was practiced with a view to saving the country from the dark domestic politics and external oppression.Lin Shu(林纾), a famous translator in China, displays his individual creativity apparently in his translation. He is a proficient classic language user in his writing and translating, however, he had little knowledge of foreign language. Before his translating, the original work was firstly interpreted by others. In the two steps, we can imagine the unavoidable creativity of the final translation. Viewed from the traditional translation perspectives, most of Lin Shu’s translations are not equivalent to their originals. There is loss of meaning or rather deviation of meaning. However, his works were popular in that time and contributed a lot to the people and society.Yan Fu(严复), one of the most important figures in the modern period of translation in China ,is the forerunner of introducing the advanced western ideas to China. He believed that literal translation of culturally loaded words was one of the important means of enriching the mother tongue. He formulated the principle “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance”(信达雅), which has been regarded as the one and only maxim all translators must observe for quite a long time.Translation theories in China, especially literary translation theories, were effectively developed from the May 4th Movement to 1949. Translation issues like: the necessity of translation, translatability and untranslatability, the relation between translation and literary creation, the improvement of translation quality and so on, were raised and adequately discussed by translation practitioners. Translation practice became diversified, covering awide range of texts from natural and social sciences to literature, and translation theories advanced from impressionistic comments to serious and in-depth reflections. Translation theory was gradually separated from translation practice and became an independent discipline.Lin Yutang(林语堂) (1984:260) put forward his translation criteria: “(1) fidelity(忠实)，(2) mellifluence(通顺)，and (3) aesthetic quality(美).” Namely, the meaning of a translation should be faithful to the original, the language of the translation should be smooth, coherent and esthetically pleasing. As can be seen that Lin's translation criteria was no more than a reproduction of Yan Fu’s “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance.(信达雅)” Fu Lei(傅雷) proposed the standard of “spiritual resemblance(神似)”, which is considered a breakthrough in translation studies in China. In the preface of one of his translations, he wrote: “As a product, translation is like imitating a picture. What is more important is the likeness of spirit not resemblance to the original one.” (ibid., 1984:80). It is originally a principle of appraising poems and portraits. He also pointed out the way to achieve such a goal: rather than mechanically imitating every single detail while losing sight of the sparks of life, the translator should convey the spirit of the original text to the target text. His views on translation a re well illustrated through the following words by himself, “As the effect is concerned, theoretically speaking, translating is just like painting from life which pursues similarity in spirit instead of similarity in form, but practically speaking, translating is much more difficult than painting from life” (Wang Bingqin, 2004:231).Later, in 1964, Qian Zhongshu(钱钟书) (1984:267) put forward his "transmigration theory(化境)” for literary translation, which was regarded as the highest standard intranslation. According to this theory, a literary translation is like the act of transmigration in which the soul, the spirit of the original text remains in the target text even although the carrier of them, the language, has changed. And the translator must overcome the difficulties caused by discrepancies between languages to enable the translated text to be read as fluently as the original text and at the same time be true to the original style.In the development of translation studies both in China and abroad, the translators are gaining more and more attention. Many scholars tend to do research on this subject, which is also what we want to expound in this paper.1.2 Cultural Turn of Translation in the WestSince the 1970s, a significant change in translation studies took place. People began to tackle translation problems with various methods and approaches from different aspects. More and more theorists have come to the recognition that literary translation should not be treated as a separate discipline, but rather as an interdisciplinary study. It should bring together works in a wide variety of fields such as linguistics, literary study, history, anthropology, psychology, culture and so on. One common feature in translation studies is an emphasis on cultural aspects of translation. Gradually, the culture-oriented approach in translation studies prevails.Eugene A. Nida says in his book Language and Culture (2001:1), “The role of language within a culture and the influence of the culture on the meanings of words and idioms are so pervasive that scarcely any text can be adequately understood without careful considerationof its cultural background.” Translation, as an activity in a highly cultural background, should pay special attention to culture. Newmark (2001:95) defines culture as “the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression”, thus from his point of view each language has its own specific cultural features. “Translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and cultures.” (Gideo n Toury, 1978:200) The translator should pay special attention to the cultural features. “We called this shift in emphasis ‘the cultural turn’ in translation studies… [it was] a way of understanding how complex manipulative textual processes take place: how a text is selected for translation, for example, what role the translator plays in that selection, what role an editor, a publisher or patron plays, what criteria determine the strategies that will be employed by the translator, how a text might be received in the target system. For a translation always takes place in a continuum, never in a void, and there are all kinds of textual and extratextual constraints upon the translator” (Bassnett Susan & Lefevere Andre, 1998:123). Here they refer to not only culture but also a series of other factors involved in translating process or beyond translation operation such as the selection of the original text, the publisher or patron’s requirements, the acceptability of the target reader.The shift of translation studies from langua ge to culture is called “cultur al turn”. The turn is a revolution with a far-reaching significance in translation history, because it liberated translator from an inferior and subordinate status to a freer and more independent position, expanding translation to a broader cultural scope. Many target culture oriented translation theories and school s are formed during the “cultur al turn”, among them the most influential are the polysystem school represented by Itamar Evan-Zohar and Gideon Toury and the。