翻譯與重譯：論老舍《駱駝祥子》四譯本的京味元素

Abstract

老舍為京味文學作家中之翹楚，寫作風格以大量北平方言、俗語、風物等為特色，其英譯作品為京味文學作家中最豐富者。《駱駝祥子》為老舍代表作之一，目前主要已有四版英文譯本問世，包括1945年美國駐中國外交官金（Evan King）譯本（曾於1946年再版）、1979年愛荷華大學藝術史博士候選人詹姆斯（Jean M. James）譯本、1981年中國口筆譯者施曉菁譯本（曾於2001及2005年再版），以及2010年著名美國華語文學譯者葛浩文（Howard Goldblatt）譯本。 回顧先前與本小說相關之翻譯研究發現，過往學者大多聚焦於譯本中特定字詞翻譯手法與整體翻譯效果，如：文化詞、翻譯風格、譯者理念等，鮮少有研究採取文化地理視角、以「京味」為切入點，探討《駱駝祥子》文本中相關元素之翻譯策略。因此，本研究從文化地理視角解讀、定義「京味」概念，結合紐馬克（Peter Newmark）於2010年提出之文化詞分類與翻譯策略，分析四位譯者針對《駱駝祥子》文本中「京味」元素之翻譯手法，討論前述四譯本在翻譯或重譯中保留、呈現「京味」之狀況，並進一步探討譯者個人及所處之時代背景，爬梳上述因素如何影響其翻譯選擇。 研究結果顯示，四譯本中愈晚問世者，其「京味」保留程度愈高；四位譯者使用之策略以紐馬克理論中「描述對等」（Descriptive equivalent）、「直譯」（Literal translation）、「轉移」（Transference）等策略為主，但對不同策略之使用時機與比例皆有所差異，使得各譯本中「京味」保留、呈現情況不一。以上現象可透過探究各譯者之個人翻譯理念、身處時代之政治文化背景、譯本目標讀者等方面加以解釋：金譯本背負美國於冷戰初期之文化政治使命，以呈現文化他者、引發讀者好奇心為主要翻譯方針；詹姆斯譯本及施曉菁譯本於改革開放之際各以進、出口中國語言及文化為目標，採取相似翻譯策略，但選取之原文版本、中文拼音系統等仍反映各譯本針對之目標讀者不同，也體現美中雙方於世界知識秩序版圖的政治角力；葛浩文譯本雖受譯者個人翻譯理念影響較深，未以文化詞翻譯為首要任務，然其「京味」保留情況仍為四譯本中最佳，且與時代較接近之譯本有較多「京味」詞語譯法相同情形，顯示在重譯過程中，文化詞譯法與翻譯策略可能存在一定「標準化」現象。另外，針對小說中不同類別「京味」元素之合適翻譯策略，「描述對等」為適用於最多類別者。本研究預期填補「京味」英譯與重譯研究之缺口，提供日後類似作品譯者借鏡，並裨益翻譯學界之相關研究。

The most celebrated author among Beijing-style Novelists, Lao She is well-known for employing abundant Pei-p’ing dialect, idioms, and descriptions of daily life in the city in his novels. Many of his works have been translated into English and were well-received, including one of his most remarkable novels, Luotuo Xiangzi, which has four main English renderings: the earliest by Evan King (1945/1946), an American diplomat to China; the second by Jean M. James (1979), a Ph.D. candidate in Art History at the University of Iowa; the third by Shi Xiaojing (1981; 2001/2005), a Chinese interpreter and translator; the latest by Howard Goldblatt (2010), a renowned American translator of Mandarin literature. Previous translation studies on the novel have shown that researchers have focused on the translation strategies applied to specific items as well as the overall effects of translation, including culture-specific items, translation styles, and translators’ beliefs. Few studies discussed how the elements presenting “Beijing flavor” in the novel were translated from a cultural geographical perspective. Therefore, this study examines “Beijing flavor” from a cultural geographical point of view and investigates how “Beijing flavor” has (not) been retained through the (re)translation performances of the four English (re)translators of Luotuo Xiangzi applying Peter Newmark’s (2010) theory of categorizing and translating culture-specific items. Further, the personal and historical contexts of the (re)translators are scrutinized and incorporated to interpret the different translation choices of the (re)translators. Research findings suggest that the more recent the (re)translation works are, the greater the extent of “Beijing flavor” is restored in them; the translation procedures employed by the (re)translators primarily include “Descriptive equivalent,” “Literal translation,” and “Transference,” while the (re)translators’ different strategies for employing the procedures lead to various levels of retention of “Beijing flavor” in each rendition. These phenomena can be explained by studying the (re)translators’ personal translation beliefs, their political and cultural contexts, and the target readership of their renditions: King’s rendition, with a mission of winning the United States an advantage in cultural politics at the beginning of the Cold War era, featured his presentation of a “cultural other” to arouse the curiosity of the readers at the time; for James’ and Shi’s renditions, while adopting different editions of original and Mandarin romanization systems, similar approaches to (re)translation are observed, together reflecting both the bilateral efforts from the U.S. and China to import/export Chinese language and culture and their political tussle for the dominance of the world order of knowledge; Goldblatt’s better performance in retaining “Beijing flavor” and the fact that “the closer his predecessors’ rendition was with his, the more identical translations of CSIs his rendition contained with his predecessor’s” demonstrate that there may exist a certain “standardization” process, through retranslations, of CSI translations and procedures adopted. In addition, the appropriate translation procedures for different categories of CSIs are discussed, with “Descriptive equivalent” being the most successfully used procedure for most categories. It is expected that this study can shed light on the (re)translation of “Beijing flavor,” benefit (re)translators of works on similar topics, and contribute to relevant translation studies.