淺評《吳密先生其人

Abstract: In previous years， the translation methods mainly centered on words and meaning translation， while recently functionalism theory has shed a light on translation. Functionalists highlight that different methodologies should be applied to different type of text''s translation. This paper based on the theory of functionalism， aims to comments on 3 translations of Wen Yuanning''s masterpiece.

摘要：在過去許多年，東西方的翻譯理論家都只重視單詞和句子的意義翻譯，而忽視了文本的類型對于翻譯結(jié)果所造成的影響。而德國的功能學(xué)派翻譯理論家賴斯等人提出了文本類型的理論。不僅為翻譯的過程和策略的選擇提供了新的依據(jù)和方法，也為翻譯的評判開辟了一個新的視角。本文運用功能理論為視角，評論了《給吳宓先生的一封信》的三個中譯本的翻譯。

Keywords: Functionalism; Text Type; Satire; Faithful

關(guān)鍵詞：功能主義;文本類型;諷刺;忠實

作者簡介：鐘靈，女，（1987-），重慶師范大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院2010級碩士研究生，專業(yè)：英語語言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語言學(xué)專業(yè)，方向：翻譯理論與實踐。

[中圖分類號]：H059[文獻標(biāo)識碼]：A

[文章編號]：1002-2139(2012)-11-0158-02

Mr. Wu Mi- A Scholar and a Gentleman excerpted from Imperfect Understanding is an essay on the portrait of Wu Mi， which has been written by scholar Wen Yanning. After the republish of Imperfect Understanding， this essay has received sensation， while the hero of this essay----Wu Mi strongly criticized this essay and author. On 1937， Febr. 28th ， in his dairy he put that \"\"：“嗚呼，溫源寧一刻薄小人耳，縱多讀書，少為正論?！?From Scholar Wu''s remark， it is not hard to confirm that Mr. Wu believed that Mr. Yang''s comment is too harsh. Making clear the relationship between the author and hero of this essay can deepen our understanding of original text and the appreciation of Chinese versions. Except for the controversy from Mr. Wu himself， this essay can be regard as remarkable especially in terms of the description of hero''s appearance and personality. So the Chinese versions of this essay also deserved to be punched. This paper would like to compare the 3 Chinese versions from the perspective of functionalism theory.

Features of this essay

The type of this original text is essay， which belongs to literary. From the perspective functionalism， the text of literary is \"creative works\"， which belongs to expressive text. The the author or the sender plays a prominent role， and the form of conveying information is unique and language of this kind endowed with aesthetic features. According to Munday， a functional linguistic， he put that， for literary works possesses aesthetic features and the text put particular emphasis on form， while translating imitation and fidelity approach should be applied.

This essay is a portrait of scholar Wu， the author adopted \"ChunQiu\" style to picture Mr. Wu. That is to say， instead ofportraying Mr. Wu directly， He applied sarcasm to implicate Mr. Wu''s personality and image. For example， instead of saying that Mr. Wu looked much older than his real age， Mr. Yang preferred to say that Mr. Wu is one of those men who never know what it is to be young. In addition， at the end of the essay， describing Mr.Wu''s room by the words: neat， clean and bear， the author intended to indicate Mr. Wu''s inner sight is quite shallow.

The tone of this essay is quite humorous and satirical by means of extreme comparison. The beginning of this essay is quite funny， the author used exaggeration and comparison means to depict the image of Mr. Wu. By compared with people who must be introduced by 100 times， the author wanted to show that Mr. Wu is quite easy to be recognized. Moreover， the author compared Mr. Wu''s head to a bomb， to elaborate he''s unique. It is worth to mention that the ending of the essay is also a comparison， the author compared the wild scene outside his windows with his bare room， to enhance his tragic and lonely.

Analysis of Chines versions

Compare the 3 translations of the first sentence:

Mr. Huang: 當(dāng)今吳宓可謂獨一無二：他讓你見過一面，就永難忘記。

Mr. Lin: 世上只有一個吳雨生，叫你一見不能忘。

Mr. Nan: 吳宓真是舉世無雙，只要見他一面，就再也忘不了。

According to Reiss''s Text Typology ， this essay belonging to expressive text which should be translated faithfully. Mr. Lin addressed Wu Mi as Yu Sheng in his version， this may due to his intimate personal relationship with Mr. Wu. So in terms of fidelity， Mr. Lin’s translation is infulenced by his personal attitude. The original sentence is that Mu Mi is like nothing on earth，and Mr. Nan’s wording is “舉世無雙\". In Chinese， \"舉世無雙\" is a commendatory term usually applied to praise something. While from the following description， it is not hard to see that the author did not want to praise Mr. Lin''s image. He just wanted to point out that Mr. Wu''s portrait is quite unique. In terms of the fidelity， Mr. Zhang''s first sentence is most close to the original sentence.

As for the devices of quotation''s translation.

Mr. Huang: 同那位聲音：“我把我的居處變成自己的絞架（Io fei giubbetto a me delle mie case）”（但丁語。------譯者注）之人一樣，吳先生從未蒙受圣恩。

Mr. Lin: 這也如但丁吟“Io fei giubbetto a me delle mie case”（我把我的廂房當(dāng)做我的一架刑枷）一樣未能達(dá)到這種境地。

Mr. Nan: 他對哥德的欽佩，卻遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)達(dá)不到哥德所說的“不忙也不閑”的境界，正如拼命自討苦吃的人遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)達(dá)不到受上帝恩寵的境界一樣。

It is obvious that Mr. Nan didn''t provide the original quotation. Mr. Huang and Mr. Lin both gave the Chinese meaning and the original quotations. The form of Mr. Huang''s version is exactly the same as the source text. Mr. Huang''s translation kept the form of the source text， therefore， Mr. Huang''s Chinese version suits Functionalism theory better than Mr. Lin''s and Mr. Nan''s.

Apart from Mr. Huang''s wording and form better suits the Functionalism theory， his tone also achieves faithful. Take the following sentence as an example to illustrate.

Mr. Huang: 吳先生舉止莊重，他對待生活認(rèn)真得很，簡直有點過分認(rèn)真。他“端正”得不偏不倚，寧折不彎。

Mr. Lin: 容貌非常端肅，對事非常認(rèn)真，守已非常嚴(yán)正。

Mr. Nan: 他嚴(yán)肅認(rèn)真，對人間一切事物都過于一絲不茍，采取了自以為是的固執(zhí)態(tài)度。

The original sentence is that \"Grave， taking life at its own face value and little too seriously， with a deportment as unbending as it is ''correct.''\" \"Grave\"， \"face value\"， \"too\"and \"unbending\"， Mr. Yang used these words to satirize Mr. Wu. And the word correct with a single quote mark here means not correct. Mr. Lin''s version didn''t express irony， what''s more， \"正\" here is not in accordance with Mr. Yang''s original meaning. Mr. Nan''s degree of sarcasm is not as strong as the source text. So， from the level of tone， Mr. Huang''s version is the best one.

Conclusion

To sum up， Mr Lin''s Chinese version is smooth but he omitted some sarcasms， and changed the tone of source text. And his wording is friendly to Mr. Wu， which is not in accordance with source text . Mr. Wu did keep the metaphors and ironic tone of source text， but compared with Mr. Huang''s version， Mr. Wu''s effect of satire and humor is not as stong as source text， and he did keep the form from the original. Mr. Huang''s version imitated the source text from the tone， the wording， and the form， This also suits the Functionalism theory， which lays great emphsis on fidelity， and perfers to translate expressive text faithfully.

Reference:

[1]、Wang Hongyin， A Translation Coursebook of Masterpiece in Chinese and World Literature， Higher Education Press2007，3

[2]、Deng Guangang， Selected Reading in Western Translation Theory， Hunan Normal University Press.2011，3

[3]、Reiss Katharina， Translation Criticism-----The Potentials and Limitations[ M] . trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. New York: American Bible Society and Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing， 2000.

[4]、張美芳， 王克菲. 譯有所為) ) ) 功能翻譯理論闡釋[ M] .北京: 外語教學(xué)與研究出版社， 2005 .