翻譯名與實：嚴復與修辭

Translation, Name and Essence: Yen Fuh and Rhetoric

10.29912/CTR.201103.0002

吳建林(Chien-Lin Wu)

嚴復 ； 翻譯 ； 修辭 ； 名 ； 實 ； 邏各斯 ； Yen Fuh ； translation ； rhetoric ； name ； essence ； logos

編譯論叢

4卷1期（2011 / 03 / 01）

39 - 72

繁體中文

嚴復翻譯研究，經常圍繞在「信達雅」之說。但本文擬跳脫此種論述主軸，而將嚴復之「翻譯」、「論述」與「詮釋」，視為彼此相互關聯之言語行為，並以修辭視野，考察嚴復散見各處之翻譯修辭論述與實踐。本文首先考掘嚴復翻譯修辭論述之話語脈絡，並指出除中國傳統儒、道思想外，嚴復亦受西方啟蒙情理觀之影響。再者，名實之辨，為西方啟蒙哲學之重要命題，而嚴復於其翻譯修辭論述與實踐之中，亦經常出現名實之辯證關係。最後，本文探究西方「邏各斯」(logos)與嚴復翻譯修辭觀之關聯，以及嚴復如何藉由啟蒙時期之「實驗方法」（experimental method），而達其會通中西之意旨。在嚴復「方便善巧」之翻譯運作與文字佈置下，其「翻譯」、「論述」與「詮釋」，亦融為一體。

Studies on Yen Fuh's view of translation often focus on his xin, da, ya. This paper, however, intends to diverge from this line of discussion. The author sees Yen's translation, statement, and interpretation (hermeneutic) as interrelated speech acts and examines, from the perspective of rhetoric, Yen’s statements on and practices in translation-rhetoric that are dispersed in various texts. This study first investigates the discourse context within which Yen puts forth his translation-rhetoric statements and argues that, apart from the influence on traditional Chinese Confucian and Taoist views, these statements also reflect Western Enlightenment thinking on reason and sentiment. Secondly, the relationship between name and essence, or word and reality, is one of the major concerns for Enlightenment thinkers, and dialectic of this sort is often seen in Yen’s translation-rhetoric statements and practices. This paper then explores the relationship between logos and Yen's translation-rhetoric views, and how he, using the experimental method of the Age of Enlightenment, endeavors to bring about the convergence of the West and the Chinese. Through his ＂expedient＂ translation operations and ＂calculated＂ arrangement of words, Yen's translation, statement, and interpretation also converge into a larger discourse whole.

1. Huxley, T. H. (1894). Evolution and ethics, and other essays. London: Macmillan and Co.
2. Bain, A. (1867). English composition and rhetoric (American ed., rev.). New York: D. Appleton and Co.
3. Mill, J. S. (1895). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation (People's ed.). London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
4. Spencer, H. (1898). Philosophy of style. New York: D. Appleton and Company
5. Bain, A. (1870). Logic (vol. II). London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer
6. Jevons, W. S. (1926). Science primers: Logic (1st ed.). London: Macmillan and Co.
7. Benson, T. W.(ed.),Prosser, M. H.(ed.)(1988).Readings in classical rhetoric.Davis, CA:Hermagoras.
8. Benson, T. W.,Prosser, M. H.(1988).Reading in classical rhetoric.Davis, CA:Hermagoras.
9. Bizzell, P.(ed.),Herzberg, B.(ed.)(1990).The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present.Boston:Bedford Books.
10. Bizzell, P.,Herzberg, B.(1990).The rhetorical tradition: Readubgs from classical times to the present.Boston:Bed ford Books.
11. Bryce, J. C.(ed.)(1983).Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
12. Dick, H. G.(ed.)(1955).Selected writings of Francis Bacon.New York:Random House.
13. Gourevitch, V.(Ed. Trans. Annotated)(1986).The first and second discourses, together with the replies to critics, and essay on the origin of languages.New York:Harper and Row.
14. Herrick, J. A.(2009).The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction.Boston:Pearson.
15. Liu, L. H.(1995).Translingual practice: Literature, national culture, and translated modernity-China, 1900-1937.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
16. Lu, X.(1998).Rhetoric in ancient China, fifth to third century B. C. E.: A comparison with classical Greek rhetoric.Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.
17. Richards, J.(2008).Rhetoric.London:Routledge.
18. 王宏志(2007)。重釋「信達雅」─論嚴復的翻譯理論。重釋「信達雅」─20世紀中國翻譯研究，北京:
19. 王栻編(1986)。嚴復集。北京:中華書局。
20. 王蘧常(1970)。嚴幾道年譜。臺北:大西洋圖書。
21. 任繼愈編(1985)。中國佛教史。北京:中國社會科學。
22. 吳建林(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，私立輔仁大學翻譯學研究所。
23. 李志強(2008)。先秦和古希臘語言觀研究。北京:學苑。
24. 沈蘇儒(2000)。論信達雅：嚴復翻譯理論研究。台北:臺灣商務。
25. 卓加真(2009)。譯事楷模與修辭：從修辭學的角度談嚴復的翻譯準則。廣譯：語言、文學、與文化翻譯，2，43-59。
26. 周光慶、劉瑋(1996)。漢語與中國新文化啟蒙。台北:東大。
27. 金岳霖講述、倪鼎夫整理(2005)。金岳霖解讀《穆勒名學》：紀念金先生誕辰110週年。北京:中國社會科學。
28. 孫應祥編、皮後鋒編(2004)。《嚴復集》補編。福州:福建人民。
29. 袁暉編、宗廷虎編(1995)。漢浯修辭學史。太原:山西人民。
30. 高辛勇(2008)。修辭學與文學閱讀。香港:天地圖書。
31. 高惠群、烏傳袞(1992)。翻譯家嚴復傳論。上海:上海外語教育。
32. 高聖兵(2008)。Logic漢譯研究─跨文化翻譯中的「格義」、視域融合與接受。上海:上海譯文。
33. 陳永國編(2005)。翻譯與後現代性。北京:中國人民大學。
34. 陳光磊、王俊衡(2001)。中國修辭學通史：先秦兩漢魏晉南北朝卷。長春:吉林教育。
35. 鄔昆如譯(1972)。莊子與古希臘哲學中的道。台北:臺灣中華書局。
36. 劉正埮編、高名凱編、麥永乾編、史有為編(1984)。漢語外來詞詞典。上海:上海辭書。
37. 鄭子瑜(1996)。中國修辭學的變遷。台北:書林。
38. 鄭奠編、譚全基編(1984)。古漢語修辭學資料彙編。台北:明文。
39. 韓江洪(2006)。嚴復話語系統與近代中國文化轉型。上海:上海譯文。
40. 嚴復譯、耶方斯。名學淺說。台北:臺灣商務。
41. 嚴復譯、穆勒。穆勒名學。台北:臺灣商務。