对《尤利西斯》两版译文的对比鉴赏-

Constract:BeforecomparingthetwotranslatedversionsofUlysses,weshouldhaveathoroughunderstandingofthisessay.Thereasonwhypeoplefeeldifferentlybecausetheystandindifferentstandpointsthatcomesfromdifferentculturalbackgroundandpersonalexperience.Sofirstlywehavetoknowexactlywhatreasonsmakethisworkreadableandacceptable.Facingthesameessay,thetranslatorsmaynothavethesameunderstandingofit.Onthebasisofunderstandingtheauthenticmeaningoftheoriginaltextthetranslatorsalwayshavedifferentthinkingabouttheadditionalmeaningshownbyobscureexpressions.Asnon-nativespeakers,withoutcompletelyknowingthefactorsthathavevariousinfluenceontheauthor,suchassocialcontextandculturalbackground,translatorswilleasilymisunderstandthemeaningexpressedambiguously.Ulysses,agreatworkofstream-consciousness,waswrittenbyJamesJoyceintheearly20thcentury.Thisessay,inthebeginning,mainlyshowsreadersthreeindependentstoriesthatturnouttobeonestoryintheend.Theauthorshowedreadersthefiguresbydescribingtheirtalksandinnerthoughts.Allthesewritingtechniquesmakethetranslationmorediversified.UnderacomplexbackgroundandinfluencedbyGreekmythology,thewriterhasexperiencedalotduringhismiserablechildhood.Forinstance,JamesJoyceworshipedtheheroOdysseus,alsocalledUlyssesinLatin,whenhewasachild.Atthesametime,JameswassufferedfromthewarsandIrishnationality.MaybetheseexperiencehadinspiredJamesJoycetocreatethefigureswhosimilarlyleadamiserablelife.Therefore,inthisway,wehavetotakeconsiderationthewriter’sthinkingintotranslatingandthinkastheauthordidtomakethetranslatedversionmoreaccurate.Undoubtedly,thetranslatedversionwillnotbesamebecauseofthesereasons.However,thetwoversionsweareabouttocomparearebasicallycomforttothemeaningoftheoriginaltext.Iwillcomparethistwofromseveralperspectivesinordertofigureoutwhatleadtranslatorstranslatedifferently.Comparison&analysisWord-choosing1.Grammatically,forthelimitoftheoriginaltext,thetranslatedversionhavetolargelycomforttothesyntacticstructureoftheoriginalone.However,translatorsareallowedtochoosedifferentwordsthatshowstheirlexicaldiversityandwritingstyles.Eg.Itmustbeamovementthen,anactualityofthepossibleaspossible.Aristotle’sphraseformeditselfwithinthegabbledversesand......(Jin’version那么,一定是一种运动了,可能性因为有可能而成为现实。在急促而含糊的朗诵中,亚里士多德的论断形成了...(Xiao’sversion说来那肯定是一种运动了,可能性由于有可能而变为现实。在急促而咬字不清的朗诵中,亚里士多德的名字浮现出来....Fromthetwoversions,limitedbytheoriginaltext,thetwotranslatedversionaresimilarinsentencestructureandeveninpunctuation.ButtheJinandXiaochoosethewordsdifferentlyfortheirwritinghabitsandtheirunderstandingontheoriginallanguage.Therearetwodifferenttranslations:gabbledandphrase.Jintranslatedgabbleas‘急促而含糊的’whileXiaotranslatedas‘急促而咬字不清’.Forme,IprefertheJin’sversionforthebalanceofthesentencestructureoftranslatedversion,namelythe‘急促’and‘含糊’.Actuallythere’snofixeddefinitiononthatwhichwordsshouldbechosenforthesameoriginaltext.ButaccordingtomanytranslationprinciplesthattranslatorsshouldgivemoreprioritytothereaderswearesupposedtocomplywiththelanguagehabitsofChineseinordertobetterdeliverthemeaningoftheauthor.However,thetranslationof‘phrase’differsinthetwoversions.Jintranslateditas‘论断’andXiaoregardeditasthe‘名字’.Unlikechoosingdifferentwords,thesetwowordshavecompletelymeaningsforthetheirdifferentunderstandingonthe‘phrase’.Sowhichoneisbetter?Ithinkitshouldbetranslatedas‘名言’accordingtothecontext.Linguisticstyle1.Thetranslator’sownstylewillbecomeapartofthetargettext.Thereisalsoabigdifferencebetweenthetwoversions’style.TheJin’swritingstyleismoreoralwhiletheXiao’smoreformal.That’swhyreadersmayhavedifferentattitudeandopiniontowardthesameessay.Whichstyleisbetterlargelydependsonthereaders’appetite.Atthesametime,thestyleoftheoriginaltextcan’tbeneglected.Throughreadingthisnarrativefiction,theauthorsdescribedthisstorybydepictingthetalksandinnerthoughts.Bycomparingthetwotranslatedversions,theJin’sversionisundoubtedlymoreeasytounderstandbyusingconciseness,butXiao’sversionismorelikealiteraryworkandmorereadableforitsformalexpressionthatisclosertothestyleoftheoriginaltext.Thetwoversionsbothhavetheirmerits,wecan’tmerelygiveajudgethroughexcerpts.Thetwotranslatorsareproficientinunderstandingtheauthorthenexpressingintheirownwords.Ingeneral,Jin’sversionismoreacceptablebutsomewherehedidn’tconsistentlyfollowhistranslationprinciples.Eg.--First,ourlittlefinancialsettlement,hesaid.(Jin’sversion“首先,咱们先来小小的财务结算”,他说。(Xiao’sversion“头一桩,把咱们那一小笔账结了吧,”他说。Accordingtothecontext,thisisaconversationbetweenStephenandMr.Deasywhoisapositiveandtalkativefigure.Unlikethestylementionedabove,Jin’sversionismoreformalthistime.Instead,Xiao’sversionismoreoralandclosertothereaders.2.Fromthetwotranslatedversions,wecaneasilyfindoutthattheJin’sversionismoreacceptableinmanycases.ButsometimesXiao’sversionisbetterthanJin’sinrearrangingthesentences.Eg.Sargentwhoalonehadlingeredcameforwardslowly,showinganopencopybook.Histhickhairandscraggyneckgavewitnessofunreadinessandthroughhismistyglassesweakeyeslookeduppleading.Onhischeek,dullandbloodless,asoftstainofinkylay,date-shaped,recentanddampasasnail’sbed.(Jin’sversion只有萨金特没有走,他捧着一本打开的抄本,慢慢地走上前来。厚厚的头发,瘦骨嶙峋的脖子,都证明他的迟钝;模糊的镜片后面是两只无神的眼睛,仰望着,乞求着。他的脸灰暗而无血色,面颊上有一块新抹上去的墨水,枣子形,还湿漉漉的呢,象蜗牛的窝似的。(Xiao’sversion萨金特独自留了下来。他慢慢腾腾地走过来,拿出一本摊开的练习本。他那浓密的头发和消瘦的脖颈都说明了他的笨拙。透过过含糊不清的镜片,他翻起一双迟钝的眼睛,央求着。他那灰暗而毫无血色的脸蛋儿上,沾了块淡淡的枣子形的墨水渍。刚刚摸上去,还湿润的像蜗牛窝似的。ThisparagraphmainlydescribeswhatSargentlookslike.AsaChinese,theJin’sversionmakesmemoreeasilyformuptheSargent’slookinginmymind.Jinseparatesthelongsentenceintoseveralshortones.Forexample,‘...两只无神的眼睛,仰望着,乞求着...’and‘...一块新抹上去的墨水,枣子形,还湿漉漉的呢...’SuchshortsentencesgivesusaplaindescriptionwhichcomfortstothereadinghabitsofChinesereaders.ChineseisalanguagethatparataxiscanbefoundalmosteverywhereinChineseliterature.Therefore,thecomplicatedcombinationofsentencestructureisunnecessaryinChinese.Suchasentencestructurearrangedconciselygivesreadersabriefbutnotsimplefeelingofthefigure.However,itdoesn’tmeanthatthesecondoneisworse.Xiao’sversiongivesusmoredetailsandmakesusthinkmore.ThelongsentenceXiaousesismuchmoreliteraryandreadablethanJin’stranslation.Xiaochoosemoreappropriatewordsasthedescriptionofthefigure,suchas‘他那浓密的头发和消瘦的脖颈’,‘含糊不清的镜片’and‘灰暗而毫无血色的脸蛋儿上’.Suchanexpressionismorecoherentandlogical.Althoughthesentenceislittlebitlongerthanthefirstversion,itgivesreadersachancetorepeatandrethinkwhatmeaningthattheauthorwantedtoshowusbehindthefigure’slooking.Allinall,eachofthetwoversionshasitsadvantagesanddisadvantages,however,whichcanbecombinedtogetherasabetterone.Here’smyversionthatexcerptedfromthesetwoversions.(myversion人都走光了,只剩下了萨金特一个人。他慢慢腾腾地走过来,拿出一本摊开的练习本。他那浓密的头发和消瘦的脖颈都显示了他动作的笨拙,模糊的镜片后面是两只无神的眼睛,仰望着,乞求着,他那灰暗而毫无血色的脸蛋儿上有一块新抹上去的墨水,枣子形,还湿漉漉的呢,象蜗牛的窝似的。3.—Iforgottheplace,sir.279B.C.—Asculum,Stephensaid,glancingatthenameanddateinthegorescarredbook.(Jin’sversion“我忘了地点,老师。公元前279年。“阿斯库伦,”斯蒂汾说着,朝血污斑驳的书上的名字和年代瞥了一眼。(Xiao’sversion“地点我忘记啦,老师。公元前二七九年。”“阿斯库拉姆,”斯蒂芬朝着沾满血迹的书上那地名和年代望了一眼,说。Obviously,Jinfocusmoreontheequivalenceoflinguisticstyleofthetwolanguages.Hedirectlytranslatedgorescarredinto‘血污斑驳’.‘Gorescarred’originallyreferstothefiercenessofthebattlebutJindidn’ttakethebackgroundknowledgeintoconsideration.Inaddition,Jindidn’tchangethesentenceorderwhileXiaorearrangetheorderinawaythatismoreacceptablebytargetreaders.Xiao’sversionseemsmoreunderstandable.Besides,Xiaoadd‘沾满’intheendofthesentence,whichmakesthereadersimpressive.4.Ahastystepoverthestoneporchandinthecorridor.BlowingouthisraremoustacheMrDeasyhaltedatthetable.(Jin’sversion门外传来一阵急促的脚步声,走过门廊的石板地,进了走廊。戴汐先生吹着稀疏的八字胡子,走到大桌子边才站住。(Xiao’sversion沿着门廊的石板地走廊传来一阵急促的脚步声。迪希先生吹着他那稀疏的口髭,在桌前站住了。Underthedifferenttranslationstrategies,thetwotranslatorsdiffersintheirversions.There’snoverbsinthefirstsentenceoftheoriginaltext.TheactofMr.Deasyisshownbytheprepositionoverandin.Therefore,Thetranslatorshavetoverbalizetheprepositions.Jintranslatedoverinto’走过’andininto‘进了’,whichvividlydescribedtheactsofMr.