兩岸成語英譯策略之比較研究：以台灣與中國的官方出版物為例

成語向來是漢英翻譯研究中重要的一環，但有關成語英譯的比較研究卻相當缺乏。本研究採用質性兼量性的研究方法，目的是以全方位的角度比較兩岸譯者的成語英譯策略，並分析使用不同策略背後的原因及呈現出的效果。研究中的成語依比例取材自教育部《成語典》中的各個類別，總數為300條；之後將選取的成語輸入由兩岸官方所建立，具備完整中英語料及代表性的《光華雜誌中英對照知識庫》及《漢英成語詞典》，以擷取原文及譯文作為研究語料。此外，本研究以調整後的Gottlieb（1997）成語翻譯理論作為歸類之基礎，其涵蓋Adherence （Congruence, Equivalence, Correspondence）、Literalization （Reduction, Paraphrase, Expansion）、Deletion（Omission）及Others（任何不屬於上述七種的策略）四大類別。歸類完成後，筆者再統計出雙邊譯者在各個策略上的使用頻率，並針對各項策略逐一舉例說明。研究結果顯示，雙邊譯者在各個策略上的使用頻率排序恰好相同，由高而低分別為：Literalization、Adherence、Others及Deletion。然而，中國譯者在Paraphrase的使用頻率上高於台灣譯者許多，而台灣譯者在Others的使用頻率上又明顯高於中國譯者，說明台灣譯者在策略運用上較靈活多元，重視上下文搭配及易讀性，而中國譯者則相對保守，強調訊息的傳達及譯文的精準度。文末說明研究限制，並對未來研究方向提出建議。

關鍵字

成語英譯；翻譯策略；比較研究

並列摘要

Chengyu have long occupied an important niche in Chinese-to-English translation studies. Comparative translational studies on Chengyu, however, have been relatively scarce. Therefore, by employing both qualitative and quantitative methods, this study aims to compare strategies for rendering Chengyu adopted by translators in Taiwan and China from an all-encompassing view, as well as analyze the reasons for the use of different strategies and their intended effects. In this study, a total of 300 Chengyu were proportionally selected from different categories in Dictionary of Chinese Idioms, an online database developed by the Ministry of Education of Taiwan. The selected Chengyu were then typed into Taiwan Panorama Corpus and Dictionary of Chinese Idioms, two official online databases featuring a large collection of bilingual texts and respectively representative of the translation styles of Taiwanese and Chinese translators, to collect examples and their translations. An adjusted version of Gottlieb’s (1997) idiom translation model, which includes Adherence (Congruence, Equivalence, Correspondence), Literalization (Reduction, Paraphrase, Expansion), Deletion (Omission), and Others (Strategies not categorized as any of the above), was adopted and served as the theoretical basis for categorization in this study. In addition, frequencies of use on each strategy were respectively calculated for both sides, and examples are provided for a more detailed discussion. The results suggested that both sides employed the four major strategies with the same order of frequency, with Literalization being the most commonly used, followed by Adherence, Others, and Deletion. However, Chinese translators showed a notably higher frequency of use on Paraphrase, while Taiwanese translators favored the use of Others far more than their Chinese counterparts. The differences revealed that in translating Chengyu, Taiwanese translators were more flexible, as evidenced by their inclination to adopt varied translation strategies to ensure coherence and readability. Chinese translators, on the other hand, laid great emphasis on message delivery and preciseness, and would generally opt for a ‘play-it-safe’ strategy. Limitations of this study and suggestions for future studies are listed in the final chapter.