跨語際下的文化翻譯與身分移動—以劉克明為例的探討(1895~1945)

Abstract

本文探討日治時期臺灣的跨語際文化翻譯問題，並選擇具備新�舊學知識的公學校臺籍教師劉克明（1884~1967）為研究對象，文中除了分析他在漢詩、雜文、論說等各類型詩文書寫或翻譯著述中，曾經出現過的臺灣人、教師、通譯、編輯、文人等多元身份變化狀態之外，也進一步討論他在從事上述文學�文化�語言相關活動中，如何建立、回應與定位日�臺不同文化的差異問題，以及其間因為進行文化中介�斡旋所產生的身份移動狀況，由此梳釐劉克明游移於臺�日文化之間交融�對話的重層混雜特質。在文章內容方面，首先點出劉克明兼備新�舊學、日�臺文化及語言能力的複雜學養情形；其次再由教育者、傳統文人、文化中介者等三重社會身分，探究劉氏多面向的相關活動軌跡，繼而分析在不同的身分狀態下，他如何定位與評價新�舊、臺�日、臺灣�西方文化？並如何看待文化譯介此一行為？對文化譯介的認知態度為何？其文化翻譯行為抱持著怎樣的目的？在不同的書寫場域，是否譯介書寫的樣貌也會有所不同以及產生調整？又或者仍具有某種共通性？另外，依據不同的書寫場域，劉氏如何彰顯其身分移動時的能動性與主動性？透過本文整理其曖昧與混雜的文化譯介作品，期望能夠以個案研究角度，呈顯日治時期跨語際文化翻譯行動的複雜多元樣貌與形態。

The article explores the cross-lingual and multi-cultural translation problems during Taiwan under Japanese rule between 1895 and 1945. The Taiwanese public school teacher, Liu Ke-Ming (1884 ~ 1967) with New/Old Learning is selected as the study object. In addition to analyzing his various identities such as Taiwanese, teacher, translator, editor, scholar that presented in his poetry, essays, discourse and other types of poetry or translated writings, the article also analyzes the related activities he engaged in as above mentioned, studies how he responded and positioned the cultural difference between Taiwan and Japan, and the identities transfer in line with the cultural intermediary/mediator role. On the basis, the article sorts the complicated features that Liu Ke-Ming showed when wandering in Taiwan / Japan cultural mixture/dialogue. On the content, the article first points out the complex education background of Liu Ke-Ming’s linguistic competence in New/Old Learning, Japan/ Taiwan culture; follows by the analysis on his educator, traditional scholar, cultural inter-mediator identity to explore his multidimensional activities and then analyzes how he positioned and evaluated the New/Old Learning, Taiwan / Japan, Taiwan / Western culture in a different identity. The article also explores how he treated cultural translating behavior, how he recognized a cultural translator, and what was his purpose for translating. The article also explores issues such as will he alter or adjust the writing in different writing conditions? Or is there something in common? According to writing conditions, how Liu demonstrated the motility and initiative between deferent identities? Through the article, Liu’s ambiguous and confounding translation works are sorted. With the individual case study, the article tries to present the complexity and morphological appearance of cross-lingual and multi-cultural translation during the Japanese colonial period.