Analysis on Howard Goldblatts Translation of Rice From the Perspective of Translator SubjectivitWord格式.docx

Analysis on Howard Goldblatts Translation of Rice From the Perspective of Translator SubjectivitWord格式.docx

《Analysis on Howard Goldblatts Translation of Rice From the Perspective of Translator SubjectivitWord格式.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Analysis on Howard Goldblatts Translation of Rice From the Perspective of Translator SubjectivitWord格式.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

　　Withtheemergenceofcultureturninthe1980s，translator’sinvisiblestatushasbeenchanged.Translationprocessisnolongerconsideredasasimpleconversionprocessfromtheoriginallanguagetothetargetlanguage，butaprocessfullofcreativity.

　　RiceistheChinesenovelistSuTong’ssecondnovelwhichdealswithChinainthe1930s.HevividlyportraysDepression-eraChinaandthecharactersthatpopulatethisnovel.HowardGoldblattdevoteshimselftothetranslationofmodernandcontemporaryChinesenovelsintoEnglishandRiceisoneofhisnumerousworks.Hisimpeccabletranslationdoesmuchjusticetotheflowofthetale.FromthestudyonGoldblatt’scase，inspirationscanbedrawnontheexerciseoftranslator’ssubjectivityintheprocessofintroducingandtranslatingChineseliteraturetotheworld.

　　Researchmethodssuchasexemplificationandinductionwereadoptedinthisarticle.Differentinterpretationsoftranslator’ssubjectivitywerereviewedatthebeginningofthearticleaccordingtoProfessorLü

Jun’sdivisionofthreeparadigmsinChinesetranslationstudy.Theinfluentialfactorsontranslator’ssubjectivitywereanalyzedonthetheoreticalbasisofmanipulationschoolandfunctionalistschool.ThemanifestationofHowardGoldblatt’ssubjectivityinthetranslationofRicewasanalyzed，followedbyreflectionsontheexerciseoftranslator’ssubjectivity.

　　Keywords：

Translator’ssubjectivity；

HowardGoldblatt；

TranslationofRice

　　Qiu，X.（2015）.AnalysisonHowardGoldblatt’sTranslationofRicefromthePerspectiveofTranslator’Subjectivity.CanadianSocialScience，11（3），-0.Availablefrom：

http：

//

　　DOI：

//dx.doi.org/10.3968/6623

　　INTRODUCTION

　　Forquitealongtime，undertheinfluenceofsource-textorientedtheory，traditionaltranslationstudieshavethistendencytoconsiderfaithfulnessand/orequivalencetheabsolutestandardintheevaluationandjudgmentofatranslation.

　　Iseetranslationastheattempttoproduceatextsotransparentthatitdoesnotseemtobetranslated.Agoodtranslationislikeapaneofglass.Youonlynoticethatit’stherewhentherearefewimperfections-scratches，bubbles.Ideally，thereshouldn’tbeany.Itshouldnevercallattentiontoitself.（Venuti，1995，p.1）

　　Consequently，thetranslatortrieshis/herbesttoreducethesubjectivityinvolvedintheprocessoftranslation.Despitenumerousarticlesandresearchesonthesignificanceofthetranslator’ssubjectivity，theprinciplesandcriterionsonthedisplayortheexerciseoftranslator’ssubjectivityremaincontroversial.Manycontemporarytranslationtheoriessuchasfunctionalistschool，descriptiveschool，hermeneutics，deconstructionism，aestheticsofreceptionetc.arestartingtoquestiontheauthorityoftheoriginal.Theypushtranslatorsintoamoreauthoritativeandsubjectiveposition.Studyontranslator’ssubjectivitycanbetterourunderstandingoftheroleandnatureofthetranslatornotonlyintheprocessoftranslationbutalsointheculturalcommunicationandconstruction.　　HowardGoldblattenjoysthehighestpositioninChineseliteraturetranslatorsintheWesternworld.ChinesetranslationscholarsconcentratetheirstudyonseveraltypicalnovelsincludingWolfTotem，RedSorghum，BigBreastsandWideHipsetcfromvariousperspectives，whileSuTong’sRiceisrarelymentionedinthestudies.Underthisbackground，thisarticletriestofinditswaytotheexplorationofGoldblatt’stranslationofRicefromtheperspectiveofthetranslator’ssubjectivity.

　　1.STUDYONTRANSLATOR’SSUBJECTIVITYINCHINA

　　Chinesescholarshavemadehugeprogressontheconstructionoftranslationtheory.Theygraduallydeepenedtheirawarenessandunderstandingoftheobjectsandpropertiesoftranslation.ProfessorWangZuoliang（1997）andTanZaixi（2000）madeaclearexplanationontheobjectsoftranslation；

ProfessorLiuMiqing（2007）andLü

Jun（2006）alsoexploredthenatureoftranslation.ProfessorLü

Junbelievesthattranslationhasgonethroughthreephases，whicharealsoknownasthreeparadigms：

paradigmofphilology，paradigmofstructuralismandparadigmofdeconstructionism.Heanalyzesthephilosophicalandtheoreticalfoundationofthosethreeparadigmsseparately，pointingouttheirweaknesses.Inhisview，theparadigmofphilologylackssystematictheory.Translationisunderstoodasaninspirationalandirrationalperformanceunderthisparadigm.Thephilosophicalfoundationisbasedonacertaindegreeofsubjectivismandmysticism.Linguisticsisthetheoreticalfoundationoftheparadigmofstructuralism.Theparadigmofstructuralismgivesfullexplanationontheimportanceofthetext，butitstepstoanextremeforover-emphasizingthetext.Itputsexcessiveemphasisonlinguisticgeneralityandlanguageanalysis，ignoringthedifferencesbetweenlanguagesandtranslator’ssubjectivityandcreativity.Whileinthedeconstructionismparadigm，undertheinfluenceofHermeneutics，receptionaestheticsanddeconstructionism，thesubjectivityofthetranslatorisawakened，reaffirmedandundisciplined.

　　Fromtheanalysisabovewecanseethat，paradigmofphilologyandparadigmofdeconstructionismareirrational.Translator’ssubjectivityandtranslator’sinitiativearecloselyrelated.Translator’ssubjectivityisinterpreteddifferentlyinthethreeparadigms.Inparadigmofphilology，translationactivitiesarebelievedtobedependentonthetranslator’spersonality，extensiveknowledgeandtranslationskills.Thisinterpretationoftranslator’ssubjectivityisnotbasedonscientificepistemology，soduringthisperiod，mosttranslationstudiesareabouttranslationmethodratherthantranslationtheory.Instructuralismparadigm，thetranslator’sstatusisdowngradedsharply.Translator’ssubjectivityisrestrainedandthetextisseenasafixed，closedandself-sufficientsystem，whichhasnothingtodowiththesubjectiveexperience.Withthedevelopmentoftranslationstudiesinrecentyears，moreandmorescholarsbegintoexploretranslationfromdifferentangles.Paradigmofdeconstructionismisatheoryofskepticismandanon-rationalthought.Deconstructionismdeniesthesignificanceofdeterminismandannouncesthedeathoftheauthor.Itgivestranslatorabsoluterightofexplanationandtranslator’srewritingisbelievedtobenecessarytomaketheoriginalwidelyspreadintheworldandconstantlysurvive.　　Fromthereviewabove，wecanseethetranslator’shumblestatushaschangedgreatlyincontemporarytranslationstudies.Theclaimofsubjectivityendowsthetranslatorwithfreedomtoshowhis/herinitiativeandcreativity.Thetranslatorstartsgainingindependentpersonalityandacademicfame.

　　2.INFLUENTIALFACTORSONTRANSLATOR’SSUBJECTIVITY

　　Withthedevelopmentofnewparadigmsintranslationtheory，twoinfluentialschoolsemerged：

SkoposTheoryandManipulationSchool.Theformerfocusesonthetranslationofpracticaltext，whilethelatteriscommittedtothestudyofliterarytext.Thetwoschoolsalsohavedifferentinterpretationsabouttheinfluentialfactorstotranslator’ssubjectivity，fortranslator’ssubjectivityisconstrainedbydifferentfactorsinthetranslationofpracticaltextandliterarytext.

　　2.1PurposeofTranslation：

OntheBasisofSkoposTheory

　　ThecoreconceptofSkopostheoryisthatthepurposeoftranslationisthemostimportantandinfluentialfactortothetranslator’ssubjectivity.Skopostheorybelievesthattranslationisapurposefulactivity，whichshouldpayspecialattentiontothefeaturesofthetargettextratherthanthefeaturesoftheoriginaltext.TheorientationofSkopostheoryisthepurposeandfunctionofthetranslatedtextanditfocussesonthepracticaluseoftranslationintargetlanguage.Skopostheorybelievesthattranslationisaninterculturalcommunicationactivitywithclearpurposeandtheproductionofinteractionbetweenthemultiplefactors.Skopostheorybelievesthatintheprincipleofpurpose，coherenceandfidelity，thepurposecomesfirst.Hence，undertheguidanceofSkopostheory，thetranslatorshouldbyallmeanstoachievethetranslationandtransmissionofpurposeandfunction，evenbythecostofcoherenceandfidelity.Thatistosay，thetranslatorhasbeenendowedwithsubjectivityandauthorityintheprocessoftranslationinordertoachievetheultimatepurpose.Sourcetextisdethroned，soitispossiblenowforthesametextbeingtranslatedinmanydifferentwaysaccordingtothepurposeofthetargettextandthecommissionisgiventothetranslator.

　　2.2Ideology，PatronageandPoetics：

OntheBasisofManipulationTheory

　　Lefevere，therepresentativeofManipulationSchool，suggeststhattranslationisthemostobviousrecognizabletypeofrewriting，anditispotentiallythemostinfluentialbecauseitisabletoprojecttheimageofanauthorandthoseworksbeyondtheboundariesoftheirorigin（Lefevere，2004，p.9）Lefeverehasrepeatedlystressedthattranslationisnotanactivityinvacuumandcultureisacomplicatedsystemwhichconsistsofmanysubsystemssuchasliterature，science，andtechnology.Thus，choiceoftheoriginalworkandtranslator’ssubjectivityisaffectedandrestrainedbymanyfactors.　　AkeyclaimismadebyLefevereconcerningtheinteractionbetweenpoetics，ideologyandtranslation：

“Oneverylevelofthetranslationprocess，itcanbeshownthat，iflinguisticconsiderationsenterintoconflictwithconsiderationsofanideologicalorpoetologic