摘要
翻译就本质而言，是文化的交流。同化和异化是处理交流中文化差异甚至冲突的两种翻译策略。那么，是什么因素在影响译者的翻译策略取向呢?描写学派的代表人物之一佐哈尔以他的多元系统理论对此作了全新的解释：强势文化会使翻译文学在此文化的文学多元系统中处于次要甚至边缘的地位，从而译者多会采用同化译法；反之，在弱势文化中，翻译文学在其文学多元系统中会占据主导地位，从而译者多会采用异化译法。此理论较之传统翻译研究有着明显的进步性和可取性，但论文作者发现，它并非全无缺憾。如，它无法解释在某一历史时期，某一文化的翻译史上同化异化并存的现象；以及某一文化已衰落时，译者仍坚持采用同化而非异化做法的现象等等。于是，在论文中，作者首先分析了该理论的实质，及其利与弊，然后，在此理论的基础上，提出了自己的论断，将多元系统理论所忽略的致命问题，译者对文化的主观定位涵盖了进去，并对中国的文化及其翻译史进行了细致的分析。这样，一方面以史实进一步论证了该理论的不完善，又对所提出的论断加以论证，从而完善了多元系统理论，拓宽了翻译研究的视野，并为描写学派及整个翻译学的研究做出了一定的贡献。
Translation is in nature an intercultural communication. Domestication and foreignization are two different strategies in dealing with culture differences or even conflicts in translation. Then what are the factors that influence a translator' s strategic selection? Itamar Even-zohar, one of the representative figures of descriptive school, explained this from a completely new perspective with his Poly-system Theory: strong cultures tend to relegate the translated literature in a secondary position in its literary polysystem, and consequently translators tend to adopt a domesticating way of translation, while within weaker cultures, translated literature always assumes a primary position in the polysystem and thus the translation strategy is often foreignization-oriented. Compared with traditional translation studies, the polysystem theory has its obvious theoretical advances and rationality, but the author of the paper finds that the theory is not without limitations, for it cannot explain the coexisten
ce of the two different strategies during one single historical period in the translation history of a culture, and the fact that translators still stick to the domesticating way of translation while the culture has actually declined, etc. Therefore, in
this paper, the author firstly analyzes the essense of the theory, its advances and limitations, and then based on the theory, puts forward a hypothesis that takes into account the translator' s subjective attitude towards the culture, a point that is crucial but neglected by the theory. After this, the author makes an elaborate analysis of Chinese culture and its translation history, this way, further exposing the theory' s limitations with historical facts on the one hand, and getting the author' s hypothesis successfully verified on the other. By this, the paper perfects the polysystem theory, broadens the view of translation study, and constitutes a contribution to the study of descriptive school and the whole translation field as well.
引文
1．陈福康：1998；中国译学理史稿；上海外语教育出版社
2．罗新璋：1984；翻译论集；商务印书馆
3．郭建中；2000；文化与翻译；中国对外翻译出版公司
4．郭著章；1999；翻译名家研究；湖北教育出版社
5．王克非；1997；翻译文化史论；上海外语教育出版社
6．畅广元；2000；文学文化学；辽宁人民出版社
7．沈苏儒；1998；论信达雅；商务印书馆
8．许钧；1998；翻译思考录；湖北教育出版社
9．孔慧怡；1999；翻译．文学．文化；北京大学出版社
10．程恩富：1999；文化经济学通论；上海财经大学出版社
11．商务印书馆编辑部；1982；论严复与严译名著
12．包惠南；2001；文化语境与语言翻译；中国对外翻译出版公司
13．许钧；1996；文字．文学．文化-《红与黑》汉译研究；南京大学出版社
14．王佐良；1997；翻译：思考与试笔；外语教学与研究出版社
15．周仪，罗平；1999；翻译与批评；湖北教育出版社
16．中国近代现代史上册；2000；人民教育出版社
17．世界近代现代史上册；2000；人民教育出版社
18. Endwen Gentzler; 1993; Contemporary Translating Theories: London and New York: Routledge
19. Zhen Shen-tao; 1994; Translation and Cultural Exchange; Chengdu
ScientiFic University Press
20. Eugene A. Nida; 1993; Language, Culture and Translating; Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press
21. Lawrence Venuti; 1995; The Translator's Invisibility; London and New York: Routledge
22. Andra Lefevere; 1992; Translation—History, Culture: a Source Book; Cambridge University Press
23. Eugene A. Nida; 1963; Toward a Science of Translating; Leiden: E.J. Brill
24. Robert Phillipson: 1997; Linguistic Imperialism; Oxford University Press