论文部分内容阅读
Reader-response criticism is a theory of literary criticism. This theory holds that the significance of a literary work can only be realized by readers’ act of reading and there is not right or wrong when understanding the meaning of a literary work for it is natural for different readers with different experiences to interpret one text from different perspectives. This point also works in the translation activity. This paper will focus on studying the former reader， namely the translator， explaining why different translators interpret one source text differently based on horizon of expectations， which is a crucial concept of reader-response.
Reader-response Criticism and Translators
According to reader-response criticism， in the translation activity， different translators will interpret the same source text into different versions according to their different horizons of expectations. However， every translators’ horizon of expectations is different from one to another since it is decided by times， regions， cultures， ideologies， personal experiences， aesthetic differences and so on. This chapter is about to take different versions of the same source text as examples to prove how and why different horizons of expectations influence translators’ translation activities from perspectives of times.
Different Versions of the Same ST By Translators From
Different Times
Gadamer proposed every understanding or interpretation is a historical phenomenon； none of them can escape from the control of the history.（qtd. in Huang 31） The translator， as one of the readers in translation activity， his horizon of expectation is historical. According to reader-response theory holds， readers from different times tend to have different horizons of expectations. Also， translators from different periods of history often interpret one work in different ways based on their own history backgrounds. As the American scholar Joseph T. Shaw said， “Every translator makes his translated work more or less in accordance with the features of his time.”（qtd. in Xi 321） Take the following two translated versions of the same source text in Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield as examples. Lin Shu finished translating David Copperfield into Chinese with the name《块肉余生述》in 1850. While， in 1950， Dong Qiusi’s version emerged， with its Chinese name《大卫· 科波菲尔》.
Source text：
My shoes were by this time in a woeful condition. The soles had shed themselves bit by bit， and the upper leathers had broken and burst until the very shape and form of shoes had departed from them.（qtd. in Xi 339 ） Target text：
Version 1：
余自顾其身，则垢敝不可状，履穿，皮衬偏偏碎落，纫处皆散，足趾且露。（Translated by Lin Shu）
Version 2：
我的鞋子这时已经陷入可悲的状况。鞋底已经一片一片地脱落，上面的皮子也破裂到失去了鞋子的原形。
（Translated by Dong Qiu-si）
（qtd. in Xi 339-40）
The above lines of the ST describe David’s miserable situation before he meets his aunt after deciding to leave London. From these two TT versions ， it can be obviously seen that Lin used classical Chinese， while Dong adopted vernacular Chinese. In Lin Shu’s time， scholars tended to use classical Chinese in literary works and readers also expected classical Chinese. Though he did not translated source text word for word， he communicated the spirit of the ST with his proficient classical Chinese writing skills. He satisfied the readers’ horizons of expectation of his time， thus his version of David Copperfield became quite popular then. While， Dong translated David Copperfield 100 years later after Lin， it is reasonable for him to use vernacular Chinese. In his time， vernacular Chinese had become very common and most people can only understand vernacular Chinese. Briefly speaking， classical Chinese is difficult for him and his readers. Therefore， his translating the David Copperfield into vernacular Chinese is necessary.
Conclusion
In conclusion， the different versions of the same text by different translators give ample evidences to show how reader-response theory is reflected by translators in the process translation activity.
Reference：
[1]Huang Ze-ying（黄泽英）.“Liang Shiqiu’s Chinese Version of Shakespeare in the Perspective of Reception Theory—A Case Study of His Translation of Romeo and Juliet.” Diss.（从接受理论看梁实秋的莎剧中译——以梁译《罗密欧与朱丽叶为个案》[D]）Hunan Normal U.2008.CNKI.Web.20.Dec.2013.
[2]Mao Rong-gui（毛荣贵）.Aesthetics of Translation（翻译美学）.Shanghai：Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press，2005.
[3]Xi Yong-ji（奚永吉）.COMPARATIVE AESTHETICS OF LITERARY TRANSLATION（文学翻译比较美学）.Wuhan：Hubei Education Press，2000.
Reader-response Criticism and Translators
According to reader-response criticism， in the translation activity， different translators will interpret the same source text into different versions according to their different horizons of expectations. However， every translators’ horizon of expectations is different from one to another since it is decided by times， regions， cultures， ideologies， personal experiences， aesthetic differences and so on. This chapter is about to take different versions of the same source text as examples to prove how and why different horizons of expectations influence translators’ translation activities from perspectives of times.
Different Versions of the Same ST By Translators From
Different Times
Gadamer proposed every understanding or interpretation is a historical phenomenon； none of them can escape from the control of the history.（qtd. in Huang 31） The translator， as one of the readers in translation activity， his horizon of expectation is historical. According to reader-response theory holds， readers from different times tend to have different horizons of expectations. Also， translators from different periods of history often interpret one work in different ways based on their own history backgrounds. As the American scholar Joseph T. Shaw said， “Every translator makes his translated work more or less in accordance with the features of his time.”（qtd. in Xi 321） Take the following two translated versions of the same source text in Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield as examples. Lin Shu finished translating David Copperfield into Chinese with the name《块肉余生述》in 1850. While， in 1950， Dong Qiusi’s version emerged， with its Chinese name《大卫· 科波菲尔》.
Source text：
My shoes were by this time in a woeful condition. The soles had shed themselves bit by bit， and the upper leathers had broken and burst until the very shape and form of shoes had departed from them.（qtd. in Xi 339 ） Target text：
Version 1：
余自顾其身，则垢敝不可状，履穿，皮衬偏偏碎落，纫处皆散，足趾且露。（Translated by Lin Shu）
Version 2：
我的鞋子这时已经陷入可悲的状况。鞋底已经一片一片地脱落，上面的皮子也破裂到失去了鞋子的原形。
（Translated by Dong Qiu-si）
（qtd. in Xi 339-40）
The above lines of the ST describe David’s miserable situation before he meets his aunt after deciding to leave London. From these two TT versions ， it can be obviously seen that Lin used classical Chinese， while Dong adopted vernacular Chinese. In Lin Shu’s time， scholars tended to use classical Chinese in literary works and readers also expected classical Chinese. Though he did not translated source text word for word， he communicated the spirit of the ST with his proficient classical Chinese writing skills. He satisfied the readers’ horizons of expectation of his time， thus his version of David Copperfield became quite popular then. While， Dong translated David Copperfield 100 years later after Lin， it is reasonable for him to use vernacular Chinese. In his time， vernacular Chinese had become very common and most people can only understand vernacular Chinese. Briefly speaking， classical Chinese is difficult for him and his readers. Therefore， his translating the David Copperfield into vernacular Chinese is necessary.
Conclusion
In conclusion， the different versions of the same text by different translators give ample evidences to show how reader-response theory is reflected by translators in the process translation activity.
Reference：
[1]Huang Ze-ying（黄泽英）.“Liang Shiqiu’s Chinese Version of Shakespeare in the Perspective of Reception Theory—A Case Study of His Translation of Romeo and Juliet.” Diss.（从接受理论看梁实秋的莎剧中译——以梁译《罗密欧与朱丽叶为个案》[D]）Hunan Normal U.2008.CNKI.Web.20.Dec.2013.
[2]Mao Rong-gui（毛荣贵）.Aesthetics of Translation（翻译美学）.Shanghai：Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press，2005.
[3]Xi Yong-ji（奚永吉）.COMPARATIVE AESTHETICS OF LITERARY TRANSLATION（文学翻译比较美学）.Wuhan：Hubei Education Press，2000.