|
|
|
| “Six Principles” of Literary Translation Derived from Xie He’s “Six Principles” of Painting |
| Feng Quangong |
| School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Translation theories with Chinese characteristics refer to those that are based on discursive and theoretical resources in traditional Chinese philosophy, aesthetics, literary theories, painting theories, calligraphy theories, kongfu culture and so on. These resources are increasingly emphasized by translation scholars in China in the context of promoting the confidence of Chinese literati in Chinese theories and cultures. Relevant achievements like compositional translatology put forward by Pan Wenguo, harmonizing heterogenesis translatology put forward by Wu Zhijie, Yi-Translatology by Chen Dongcheng and so on are rather noteworthy by tapping into resources from traditional Chinese philosophy and literary theories.Traditional Chinese painting theories are also well-developed and might shed some light on constructing translation theories with Chinese characteristics. Fu Lei’s “similarity in spirit” (shensi）, which originates from traditional Chinese painting theory, is a telling example. Xie He’s “six principles” of painting written about 1,500 years ago are also highly relevant to literary creation and translation, but up to now little attention has been paid to his painting theory by translation scholars. Thus, this paper tries to transplant Xie He’s “six principles” of painting into literary translation by endowing them with some different connotations, hoping to make a little contribution to the construction of translation theories with Chinese characteristics. The first principle “vitalizing force and charm” (qiyun shengdong) is commonly regarded as the ultimate aim of traditional painting, which places emphasis on the overall esthetic effect of painting. The other five principles like “reproduction and imitation” (chuanyi moxie), “lean brushwork” (gufa yongbi), “arrangement of position” (jingying weizhi) are specific ways to realize the ultimate aim.When transplanted in literary translation, the first principle “vitalizing force and charm” means to ensure the translated work is an organic whole infused with literary force (wenqi) or with high literariness by the translator. The literary force of the translated work derives both from the original author and the translator, and consequently is a fusion of their creative efforts. “Reproduction and imitation”, regarded as the second principle, is almost completely compatible with literary translation which is always viewed as an art of reproduction. Apart from faithful reproduction, this principle also demands the translator’s creativity and adaptive skills. The third principle “lean brushwork” in literary translation metaphorically refers to the writing style (wenbi) of the translator as is shown in the translated work, which is always a fusion of the author and the translator’s style, whether the translator is conscious of it or not. The fourth principle “arrangement of position” concerns the reproduction or rearrangement of structure of the whole work, its paragraphs, its sentences, phrases and words, placing emphasis on the adherence to conventions of target poetics in order to satisfy the needs of target readers. The fifth principle “depicting shapes according to real things” (yingwu xiangxing) mainly involves the reproduction of the iconicity in the original work, like iconicity in sound, number, order and shape etc. The last principle “using different colors according to different things” (suilei fucai) metaphorically refers to the intentional enhancement of emotional atmosphere, rhetorical effects and the like in the original work. It should be noted that these “six principles” can be applied not only in literary translation practice but also in literary translation criticism. In both fields, the translator’s adaptive creativity, which is not necessarily in conflict with faithfulness, should be encouraged and recognized.
|
|
Received: 23 February 2024
|
|
|
|
1 冯全功：《中国特色翻译理论：回顾与展望》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2021年第1期，第163-173页。
2 朱含汐、许钧：《关于探索中国特色翻译理论的几个问题——许钧教授访谈录》，见许钧主编：《中华译学》第1辑，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2024年，第32-42页。
3 杨镇源：《从知识到境界：论翻译学中国学派之“宇宙心”精神》，《中国翻译》2021年第2期，第22-28页。
4 陈东成：《翻译学中国学派之发展理念探讨》，《中国翻译》2021年第2期，第5-12页。
5 陈东成：《大易翻译学》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2016年。
6 吴志杰：《和合翻译学》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2018年。
7 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。
8 陈大亮：《何为翻译境界论》，《中国翻译》2021年第2期，第13-21页。
9 冯全功：《刘勰的“六观”说与中国古典诗词翻译批评》，《北京第二外国语学院学报》2021年第5期，第132-146页。
10 周积寅：《中国画论辑要》，南京：江苏凤凰美术出版社，2019年。
11 陈池瑜：《谢赫〈画品〉的历史价值及若干问题辨析》，《艺术百家》2009年第2期，第39-48页。
12 杨柳：《有法还是无法：谢赫“六法”内涵与体系辨析》，《民族艺术研究》2023年第3期，第51-61页。
13 曹贵：《谢赫“六法”原义新考》，《美苑》2013年第2期，第95-99页。
14 王乃元：《谢赫六法中的气韵生动与骨法用笔新解》，《徐州师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2008年第5期，第 56-59页。
15 王昱：《东庄论画》，见黄宾虹、邓实编：《美术丛书·初集第二辑》，杭州：浙江人民美术出版社，2018年。
16 罗新璋、陈应年编：《翻译论集》（修订本），北京：商务印书馆，2009年。
17 萧子显：《南齐书》，北京：中华书局，1972年。
18 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。
19 冯全功：《谁能养气塞天地，吐出自足成虹蜺——中国传统文化中的“气”在翻译研究中的应用》，《外语学刊》2023年第3期，第61-67页。
20 辜正坤：《中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论》，北京：清华大学出版社，2003年。
21 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。
22 罗新璋：《释“译作”》，《中国翻译》1995年第2期，第7-10页。
23 唐彪：《读书作文谱》，长沙：岳麓书社，2022年。
24 王佐良：《新时期的翻译观——一次专题翻译讨论会上的发言》，《中国翻译》1987年第5期，第2-4页。
25 王宏印：《新译学论稿》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011年。
26 范温：《潜溪诗眼》，见郭绍虞辑：《宋诗话辑佚》上册，北京：中华书局，1980年。
27 刘勰：《文心雕龙》，李平、桑农注评，南京：凤凰出版社，2011年。
28 贺贻孙：《诗筏》，见郭绍虞编选：《清诗话续编》，富寿荪校点，上海：上海古籍出版社，2016年。
29 冯全功：《还形式以生命——文学翻译中形神之争的困境与出路》，《天津外国语大学学报》2022年第3期，第11-21页。
30 王寅：《认知语言学》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006年。
31 卢卫中：《象似性与“形神皆似”翻译》，《外国语》2003年第6期，第62-69页。
32 冯全功：《文学翻译中的修辞认知转换模式研究》，《解放军外国语学院学报》2017年第5期，第127-134页。
33 冯全功、胡本真：《译者的修辞认知对译文文学性影响的实证研究》，《外语学刊》2019年第1期，第97-103页。
34 冯全功：《中国当代小说中的概念隐喻及其英译评析——以莫言、毕飞宇小说为例》，《外语与外语教学》2017年第3期，第20-29页。
35 黄宏荃：《英译宋代词选》，北京：解放军出版社，2001年。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
