中国特色翻译理论：回顾与展望

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN.33-6000/C.2019.08.301

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1142 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract In the context of promoting our confidence in Chinese theories and cultures, it is of great importance and urgency to build translation theories with Chinese characteristics. As an integral part of humanities and social sciences, translation studies as a discipline should have its own cultural genes. Translation theories with Chinese characteristics refer to those that are based on the discursive resources in traditional Chinese philosophy, aesthetics, literary theories, painting theories, calligraphic theories, kongfu culture and so on. Updated and modernized traditional Chinese translation theories also belong to such a category.There have been debates on translation theories with Chinese characteristics between supporters and dissenters, but after extensive and in-depth learning from Western translation theories over the past decades, more and more supporters seem to have emerged in order to highlight their distinctive theoretical features. Considerable achievements have been made, such as compositional translatology put forward by Pan Wenguo, harmonizing heterogenesis translatology put forward by Wu Zhijie, Yi-Translatology by Chen Dongcheng, golden-mean framework for translating poetry by Zhang Junjie and so on. These are typical cases of translation theories with Chinese characteristics. As a huge project that has immense space for further development, it should follow an “internally-bound and externally-extended” principle to build translation theories with Chinese characteristics, which should make best use of Western theoretical resources at the same time. Specific methods for building such a kind of translation theories include direct transplanting, adapted transplanting, metaphorical isomorphism, terms mutually connected, diachronic changes, new wine in an old bottle, comparison between the East and West, etc., and as to which method or methods to be used, it depends on the specific research object and purpose.The widely-known translation standards of faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance (xin, da, ya), similarity in spirit (shensi), sublimation (huajing) also belong to the category of translation theories with Chinese characteristics, and so is the “pushing hands” of translation newly put forward by Martha P.Y.Cheung and enriched by other scholars. Other key terms and propositions in traditional Chinese philosophy and literary theories are still waiting to be further transplanted in translation studies, terms like Dao, qi (force or principle), cheng (honesty or sincerity), ben (root or original), he (harmony), xin (heart or mind), yunwei (flavor or charm), ziran (nature or natural), wenzhi (content and form, or flowery and simple), qingzhuo (clear and muddy), yinxiu (implicit and explicit）, xushi (empty and real, or abstract and concrete), gangrou (solid and supple, or hard and soft), tongbian (unobstructed and flexible) and so on, and propositions like “Poetry expresses what is intently on the mind”, “Dao is governed by Nature”, “Qi is the dominant factor of literature”, “Rhetoric aims to be sincere” and so on. These time-honored terms and propositions deserve our efforts in integrating them into translation studies.It is the unavoidable responsibility of Chinese scholars to build translation theories with Chinese characteristics, which is considered a certain kind of cultural strategy by some scholars. Although the prospect is rather encouraging, some obstacles are still to be removed due to various kinds of objective restrictions, especially a lack of (young) scholars who are capable of such a task, or rather who are courageous and single-minded enough to shoulder such a task. Translation scholars in China should consciously draw nourishment from the profound heritage of Chinese culture and make best use of it in order to build a system of translation theories with Chinese characteristics. Only by ceaseless, down-to-earth efforts in building a batch of translation theories characteristic of Chinese culture and make them known to the Western world can we have our unique voice heard and win due respect in the arena of international translation studies.

Received: 30 August 2019

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors

TRENDMD:

Cite this article:

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN.33-6000/C.2019.08.301 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2021/V51/I1/163

罗新璋：《我国自成体系的翻译理论（续）》，《翻译通讯》1983年第8期，第8-12页。2 刘宓庆：《翻译理论研究展望》，《中国翻译》1996年第6期，第2-7页。3 孙致礼：《关于我国翻译理论建设的几点思考》，《中国翻译》1997年第2期，第10-12页。4 张柏然：《建立中国特色翻译理论》，《常州工学院学报（社科版）》2008年第3期，第79-83页。5 潘文国：《中国译论与中国话语》，《外语教学理论与实践》2012年第1期，第1-7页。6 何刚强：《自家有富矿，无须效贫儿——中国的翻译理论应当独树一帜之理据》，《上海翻译》2015年第4期，第1-8页。7 刘敬国：《沿波讨源，守本开新——论中国传统译论的特质及我们应有的态度》，《上海翻译》2015年第2期，第12-17页。8 贾文波：《我国译学研究：呼唤自己的创新型“子曰”说》，《上海翻译》2017年第1期，第2-7页。9 方梦之：《建设中国译学话语：认知与方法》，《上海翻译》2019年第4期，第3-7页。10 王东风：《中国译学研究：世纪末的思考》，《中国翻译》1999年第2期，第21-23页。11 张南峰：《特性与共性——论中国翻译学与翻译学的关系》，《中国翻译》2000年第2期，第2-7页。12 朱纯深：《走出误区踏进世界——中国译学：反思与前瞻》，《中国翻译》2000年第1期，第2-9页。13 谢天振：《国内翻译界在翻译研究和翻译理论认识上的误区》，《中国翻译》2001年第4期，第2-5页。14 穆雷：《也谈翻译研究者之用》，《中国翻译》2012年第2期，第5-11页。15 潘文国：《文章翻译学的名与实》，《上海翻译》2019年第1期，第1-5，24页。16 谢伏瞻：《加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学学科体系、学术体系、话语体系》，《中国社会科学》2019年第5期，第4-22页。17 冯全功：《翻译研究学派的特征与作用分析——以生态翻译学为例》，《上海翻译》2019年第3期，第38-43页。18 姜燕：《中国特色翻译理论研究》，《兰州文理学院学报（社会科学版）》2018年第3期，第116-120页。19 张柏然、辛红娟：《译学研究叩问录——对当下译论研究的新观察与新思考》，南京：南京大学出版社，2016年。20 陈大亮：《文学翻译的境界：译意·译味·译境》，北京：商务印书馆，2017年。21 童庆炳：《现代视野中的中华古代文论系统》，北京：北京师范大学出版社，2016年。22 潘文国：《译文三合：义、体、气——文章学视角下的翻译研究》，《吉林师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2014年第6期，第93-101页。23 吴志杰：《中国传统译论专题研究》，上海：上海译文出版社，2009年。24 吴志杰：《和合翻译学》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2018年。25 张思洁：《中国传统译论范畴及其体系》，上海：上海译文出版社，2006年。26 陈东成：《大易翻译学》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2016年。27 许钧：《当下翻译研究的困惑与思考》，《东北师大学报（哲学社会科学版）》2019年第3期，第1-11页。28 张俊杰：《试论中庸诗歌翻译观的构建——以王维诗歌英译为例》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2013年。29 Cheung M. P. Y., “The mediated nature of knowledge and the pushing-hands approach to research on translation history,” in Robinson D. (ed.), The Pushing-Hands of Translation and Its Theory: In Memoriam Martha Cheung, 1953-2013, London & New York: Routledge, 2016, pp. 19-33.30 Zhu Chunshen, “Towards a yin-yang poetics of translation: Tai Chi pushing-hands, haoran zhi qi, and pure language,” in Robinson D. (ed.), The Pushing-Hands of Translation and Its Theory: In Memoriam Martha Cheung, 1953-2013, London & New York: Routledge, 2016, pp. 60-81.31 Robinson D., The Dao of Translation: An East-West Dialogue, London & New York: Routledge, 2015.32 赵国月、周领顺、潘文国：《翻译研究的“中国学派”：现状、理据与践行——潘文国教授访谈录》，《翻译论坛》2017年第2期，第9-15页。33 谭载喜：《中西现代翻译学概评》，《外国语》1995年第3期，第12-16页。34 潘文国：《构建中国学派翻译理论：是否必要？有无可能？》，《燕山大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2013年第4期，第20-24页。35 冯全功、许钧：《青年学者如何做翻译研究——许钧教授访谈录》，《中国外语》2018年第4期，第104-111页。36 许钧：《改革开放以来中国翻译研究的发展之路》，《中国翻译》2018年第6期，第5-8页。37 刘宓庆：《翻译美学导论》（修订本），北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2005年。38 张柏然：《顶天立地搞科研领异标新写春秋——翻译理论研究方法论纵横谈》，《外语教育》2007年，第1-7页。39 王宏印：《新译学论稿》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011年。40 陈大亮：《刘勰的“三文”与译诗的“三味”》，《天津外国语大学学报》2012年第1期，第27-33页。41 冯全功：《论译者的翻译个性——以霍克思英译〈红楼梦〉为例》，《上海理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2016年第1期，第21-27页。42 刘士聪：《汉英·英汉美文翻译与鉴赏》，南京：译林出版社，2002年。43 冯全功：《论文学翻译中的诚信观》，《西安外国语大学学报》2013年第4期，第112-115页。44 刘宓庆：《中西翻译思想比较研究》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2005年。45 Chan L. T., Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues and Debates, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.46 Martha P. Y. Cheung, An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation, vol.1: From Earliest Times to the Buddhist Project, London & New York: Routledge, 2016.