Covert Translator's Subjectivity and Cultural Identity: A Case Study of the Chinese Translation of The Godfather

隱性譯者主體性之生成與文化身份：以《教父》之中譯為例

10.29786/STI.200812.0003

吳怡萍(Yi-Ping Wu)

隱形譯者 ； 主體性 ； 文化身份 ； 教父 ； translator's subjectivity ； cultural identity ； The Godfather ； Mario Puzo

翻譯學研究集刊

11輯（2008 / 12 / 01）

61 - 84

英文

翻譯是表意實踐與越界再現的表現，時常涉及主體與他者的定位，而隱性譯者的主體性發揮則受到邊緣化定位。本文試圖闡釋隱性譯者之主體性問題，以《教父》之中譯為例，許綬南的「地道翻譯」策略不僅忠誠的保有原著思想，另一方面則把語言或文化差異消弭後主入目的語之中，譯者在決定自己翻譯目的、具體文本與處理策略時，無疑發揮了主觀能動性，當其主體意識作用於原著這個客體時，透過互動交織而建構出譯者的主體性，換言之，譯者在面對源語環境制約與目的話規範，即原著異己性語言與文化隔閡，為能與之契合，則會強化譯者主體之有效性與其在翻譯中之實際功能，而非將自身邊緣化，甚至隱形，譯者形塑或呈現異域文化的影響力不僅清晰可見，同時彰顯出雜交的跨文化認同。

This paper aims to argue against the ontological view of covert translator's lack of subjective judgment and creativity. The Chinese translation of Mario Puzo's The Godfather is used as an example to explore Shounan Hsu's discursive practices as a covert translator in relation to the possibility of forming a quintessential subjectivity and cultural identity. Philip Lewis's concept of ”abusive fidelity” is applied to discuss the translator's discursive practices in reconstructing the other and the authentic specimens of an alien world. The manipulations behind a given positioning of the coven translator bring the ethnic text/culture being translated accessible to the target culture's readers. The signifying practices employed by the covert translator as a linguistic and cultural mediator can be regarded as constituting a particular subjectivity. Working within the original and the local cultural contexts, Hsu's idiomatic translation strategy and abusive fidelity to the source text help him remain intact a cross-cultural hybrid identity.

1. Adler, S.,Samovar, L.,R. Porter (ed.)(1982).Intercultural Communication A Reader 3.Belmont:Wadsworth.
2. Arrojo, R.,M. Snell-Hornby,Z. JettmarováK. Kaindi (ed)(1997).Translation as Intercultural Communication.Philadelphia:J. Benjamins.
3. Bassnett, S.,Lefevere, A.(1998).Constructing Cultures (Topics in Translation 11).Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
4. Ferraro, T.(1993).Ethnic Passages: Literary Immigrants in Twentieth-Century America.Chicago:U of Chicago P..
5. Hermans, T.,M. Snell-Hornby,Z. JettmarováK. Kaindl (ed.)(1995).Translation as Intercultural Communication.Philadelphia:J. Benjamins.
6. Hicks, E.(1991).Border Writing: The Multidimensional Text.Minneapolis:U Minnesota P..
7. House, J.(1997).Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited.Tübingen:Niemever.
8. Hsu, Shounan. (tr.)(2002).Jiaofu.Taipei:Rye Field.
9. Ivir, V.(1998).Translators' Strategies and Greativity.Philadelphia:J. Benjamins.
10. Lefevere, A.(1988).Essays in Comparative Literature: A Systems Approach.Calcutta:Papyrus.
11. Lefevere, A.(1993).Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context.New York:The Modem Language Association of America.
12. Maier, C.,A. Dingwaney,C. Maier (ed.)(1994).Between Languages and Cultures.Pittsburgh:U of Pittsburgh P..
13. Osers, E.,A. Beylard-Ozeroff,J. Králová,B. Moser-Mercer.(1998).Translators' Strategies and Creativity.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
14. Paloposki, O.,Oittinen, R.(2000).Translation in Context.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
15. Pavis, P.(1992).Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture.London:Routledge.
16. Puzo, M.(1969).The Godfather.New York:Signet.
17. Robinson, D.(1997).What Is Translation: Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions.London:Kent State UP..
18. Snell-Hornby, M.(1988).Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
19. Toury, G.(1980).In Search of a Theory of Translation.Tel Aviv:The Potter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
20. Toury, G.(1995).Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
21. Venuti, L.(1995).The Translator's Invisibility.London:Routledge.
22. Venuti, L,S. Bermann,M. Wood (ed.)(2005).Local contingencies: translation and national identities. Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation.Princeton:Princeton UP..