Readership in Shaping Fu Donghuas Translation of Gone with the Wind.docx

Readership in Shaping Fu Donghuas Translation of Gone with the Wind.docx

《Readership in Shaping Fu Donghuas Translation of Gone with the Wind.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Readership in Shaping Fu Donghuas Translation of Gone with the Wind.docx（11页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

ReadershipinShapingFuDonghuasTranslationofGonewiththeWind

ReadershipinShapingFuDonghua’sTranslationofGonewiththeWind

　　Received4November2014；accepted10January2015

　　Publishedonline26February2015

　　Abstract

　　ThisthesisintendstointroduceafewkeyconceptsofthereceptiontheorylikeJauss’s“horizonofexpectations”andIser’s“theimpliedreader”andapplythemtojustify，intermsofthetranslationstrategies，thefirstChinesetranslationofthenovelGonewiththeWindbyFuDonghua，whichwasoncepopularamongreadersatthattimebutlateronreceivedbittercriticismfromscholarsinthetranslationdomain.

　　Keywords：

Horizonofexpectations；Theimpliedreader；Reader；Translationstrategy

　　INTRODUCTION

　　Theconventionalstudyoftranslationhasmainlyconcentratedonthepursuitoftheanswertotheseeminglysimplequestion“whatconstitutesagoodorsuccessfultranslation？

”

　　SincetranslatorYanFuproposedtheprincipleof“faithfulness，expressivenessandelegance”ahundredyearsago，manyscholarsengagedintranslationstudieshavepresentedalargenumberofpapersforthediscussionofthecriteriainevaluatingatranslation.Itisconsideredforedoomedandself-evidentfortranslatorstobefaithfultoboththeoriginalauthorandtheoriginalwork.Theso-called“oneservantwithtwomasters”isavividexpressionoftherelationshipamongtheoriginalauthor，thetranslatorandthereader.Theopinion，featuredbytheemphasisonthetranslator’sfaithfulnesstotheoriginal，hasexercisedfar-reachinginfluenceontranslationtheoryandpractice.

　　Inrecentyears，theissueofthetranslator’srolehasbecomeacommontopicwhichinterestboththeoristsandtranslators.Withathoroughstudyofthetranslator’scharactersinthem，thesubjectivityofthetranslatorhasbeenmorerecognizedandhighlighted.Asaresult，thetranslatorisliberatedfromthestatusasaservantbutisidentifiedasadynamicsubjectwhichaffectsothercomponentsintranslationpractice.Sometheoristshavegonesofarastoproposethatthetranslatorisendowedwiththeprivilegeofrewritingandmanipulatingtheoriginal.

　　Itisaregretthatduringthediscussionsoneimportantelementissomehowexcludedoratleastisignored.Ofcourse，mainlyduetotheinfluenceofsomeforeigntheoriessuchasEugeneNida’s“dynamicequivalence”theory，thereareindeedmanyscholarswhoholdthatthetranslatorsshouldbeaccountabletoreadersingeneralandthepositionofreadersshouldbehighlighted.However，comparedwiththemainstreamstudyoftheroleoftheoriginalandthetranslator，theresearchonreadershipappearstobesomehowmarginalizedintranslationstudies.Sincetheprocessoftranslationgenerallyconsistsofthreebasicelements：

theoriginaltext，thetranslatorandthereader（ofthetranslation），itseemsneitherreasonablenorpracticaltoattachtheonlyimportancetothefirsttwoelementswhileoverlookingthelastone.　　Inthisthesis，thewriterwouldliketoconductastudyontheaboveissuebydrawingonsomeessentialnotionsofsometheories，representedbyreceptiontheory.Certainly，therehavebeenafewarticleswrittenonthetranslationstudybyappealingtoreceptiontheoryafteritwasintroducedintoChinaintheearly1980s.Forinstance，intheChineseTranslatorsJournal，thefirstarticlerelatedtoreceptionaesthetics（namelyreceptiontheory）waspublishedinthesixthissueof1989withatitleof“ThoughtsafterTranslating‘TheSkyIsGray’”.JustlikethefunctionalistSkopostheoriewhichisoncemisunderstoodasunsuitableforliterarytranslation，thecasesofapplyingreceptiontheoryintoliterarytranslationarefairlyrareandinfrequent.Thepresentthesisintends，inatentativeway，tointerpretofthefirstChineseversionoftheAmericannovelGonewiththeWindprimarilyfromahistoricalview，bydrawingonsomeessentialconceptionsofreceptiontheory.Naturally，itisnotintheleasttothewriter’spurposetoputforwardaso-calledreader-centeredtranslationprinciple，butitisjustanattemptofprobingintoatypicalcaseofliterarytranslationtojustifytherecognitionofreadershipintranslation.

　　1.ANOVERVIEWOFRECEPTIONTHEORY

　　Likemanyothertheories，readerreceptiontheoryisnotsuddenlyestablishedovernight.Infact，longbeforeitsappearancesomethoughtsandconceptsconcerningreadershipwerealreadyrecordedinothernames.Butreadercriticismbecamerecognizedasadistinctcriticalmovementandanintegratedtheoreticalframeworkonlyinthe1960sinGermanyrepresentedbyHansRobertJaussandWolfgangIser.Withamoreaccurateterm“ReceptionAesthetics”（RezeptionsasthetikinGerman），theprimaryfocusofthereaderreceptionapproachfallsonthereaderandthereadingactratherthantheauthororthetextastraditionallypracticedbypreviouscriticaltheorieslikestructuralismandformalism.

　　Receptiontheoryhighlightsthestatusandroleofthereaderduringtheprocessofreadingandinterpretingthetextinthevalueconcretizationofliterature.Accordingtoreceptiontheory，theliterarytextisendowedwithnofixedandfinalmeaningorvalue；thereisnoonemeaningthatstandsrightforever.Eachtextarousesdifferentresponsesindifferentreaders.Sinceareader’sknowledgeandpresumptionsaboutthetextingeneralarechallenged，affirmedandtransformedduringtheinteractionofthereaderwiththetext，differentreadersareexpectedtomakeresponsesoftheirownwhenfacedwiththesametext.　　Receptiontheoryisroughlydividedintotwodirections，representedbyJaussandIserrespectively.

　　Jaussisdedicatedtothestudyofreadershipwithafocusonthereader’shorizonofexpectationsandaestheticexperience.InthetheoreticalworksofJauss，headoptstheconceptof“horizonofexpectations”inventedbyMannheimandPopper.Theterm“horizonofexpectations”，hasnotbeenpreciselydefinedsincethedayofitscreation.Generallyspeaking，itindicatesthesetofexpectationsagainstwhichreadersperceivethetext.Itgenerallyreferstoanintegrateddemandandlevelforliteraryappreciationwhichareexpressedasapotentialaestheticexpectationinthespecificreadingactivity.Severalfactors，rangingfromtheoutlookoftheworldandlife，thegeneralliteratehorizon，theliterateandartisticattainment，totheliterarycompetence，takeeffectinshapingareader’shorizonofexpectations.

　　AccordingtoJauss，sometraitsaredisplayedwithregardtotext，reader，andthehorizonofexpectations.First，anewtextcanbeapproachedbytheveryreaderwithacertainknowledgeframework.Withoutthepre-understanding，thereader’scomprehensionofthetextisdoomedtofailurefromtheoutset.Second，thenewtextisconstantlysituatedinahistoricalsettingwiththeexistenceofbothtextsandreceptors.Aninformalreceptionwilloccuronconditionthattheinformationandstyleofthetextarereleasedinsomewaytothereaderinadvance.Withtheformermemoryrecalledandawakenedinthisway，thereaderispreparedforaprospectivereceptionwiththenewtext.Third，thehorizonofexpectationsisinanever-changingprocess.Theprevioushorizonofexpectationswillbetransformedandenhanced，andhencenewhorizonofexpectationswillbegeneratedinthecommunicationbetweennewtextsfortheformerones.

　　UnlikeJausswhoapplieshimselftothestudyofcollectivereceptionandvastsocialbackground，WolfgangIserdedicateshimselftothestudyofthespecificreadingactivity.Hisprimarycontributionslieintheexpositionandextensionoftheterm“theimpliedreader”andintheresearchontheindeterminaciesandgapsofmeaningwithinthetext.

　　AccordingtoIser，theimpliedreaderreferstothepossiblereaderwhoissubjecttothestructureofatextandexistsinsidetheauthor，participatinginandaffectinghiswriting.Tobeexact，theimpliedreaderistheoneexpectedtoreadthefutureworkbyacertainauthor.Abstractasitis，theimpliedreaderisbynomeansanentitycreatedpurelyonthebasisoftheimaginationoftheauthor，butisgeneralizedfromagreatdealofinformationbasedonthereadingpracticeoftheactualreader.Therefore，theimpliedreaderisrootedintheactualreaderandboundtochangethelatter.　　AccordingtoIser，itisinthereadingprocessthatthetextistransformedintoaliteraryworkinthetruesense.Withouttheparticipationofthereader，thepotentialmeaningwillfailtoberealized.

　　Accordingtotheabovemainnotionsofreceptiontheory，wecangainsomeinspirationsinthestudyofliterarytranslationinthefollowing.

　　Firstly，itisconceivablyafactthatthetranslatorwouldbearinmindthetargetofhiswritingandmakeasoundjudgmentofthehorizonoftheexpectationsoftheimpliedreaderinordertobettersatisfyandmeettheneedsofthefuturereaderofthewriting.

　　Secondly，thehorizonofexpectationsofthereaderissubjecttochangeatthetimeandcircumstanceconcerningthesocialethosandculturalenvironmentischanged.

　　Thirdly，onconditionthattheimpliedreader’shorizonofexpectationsdisagreesorevenconflictswiththatofthetranslator，differenthorizonscallforanamalgamationinasuccessfulreadingactivity，inthewayeitherthetranslatororthereadercompromises.

　　Henceitisnotincidentalthatnumerousliteraryworkshadbeenshapeddifferentlyinanotherlanguagebydifferenttranslatorsindifferenteras.Ifweprobeintothesecases，wemayfindreadershipplayedadramaticroleintheprocess，suchasthetranslationoftheGermanplayMotherCourage’sCucumbersintoEnglishandtheEnglishnovelGonewiththeWindintoChines