安 徒 生 故 事 中 譯 本 研 究

Chinese Translations of Hans Christian Andersen’s Stories

呂奕欣(Yi-hsin Lu)

指導教授 ： 賴 慈 芸

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/翻譯研究所/碩士(2002年)

摘要

本論文以埃文─佐哈爾（Itamar Even-Zohar）的多元系統論為基礎，探討近百年來安徒生故事的中譯現象。埃文－佐哈爾指出，若翻譯文學處於文學系統的中心位置，則譯文講求「充分性」，若翻譯文學處於系統的邊緣位置，則譯文注重「可接受性」。翻譯文學的位置，會影響譯者的策略。
本論文分為五個時期來討論近百年來的安徒生故事中譯本。第一時期為早期的譯文，主要受晚清的翻譯規範影響。晚清的翻譯文學處於邊緣的地位，因此直譯的譯本並不受歡迎，並且出現了大量改寫以符合譯入語文化價值觀的譯本。
第二時期為新文化運動，此時的譯文位於文學多元系統的中心位置，因此安徒生故事的譯文多採直譯的策略，十分講求譯文的充分性。
第三時期為三○年代，此時期的安徒生故事預設讀者從知識份子轉變為兒童，逐漸走向邊緣的兒童文學系統，譯文也開始有了簡化與注重教育性的傾向。
第四時期之後，為五、六○年代台灣地區的譯本，此時期文學系統位於整個大多元系統的邊緣，安徒生故事也沒有新的譯本出現，可說是發展停滯的空窗期。
第五時期為一九七七年至今，此時安徒生的中譯發展可分為兒童與成人兩系統。安徒生在兒童文學系統發展得相當蓬勃，不過受限於兒童文學的自我定位，因此譯文有大量改寫的情形。至於成人系統的譯文仍處於邊緣地位，因此除了葉君健的譯本之外，並無其他著重充分性的新譯本出現。
綜合以上分析，可發現安徒生故事的中譯過程並非靜態的語言轉換。翻譯文學在多元系統的位置，會影響譯者如何操縱譯文。筆者最後提出建議，認為未來應有更多樣化的新譯本，以彌補舊譯本之不足，並符合多元系統中不同讀者的需求。

關鍵字

兒童文學 ； 翻譯 ； 改寫 ； 安徒生 ； 多元系統 ； Itamar Even-Zohar

並列摘要

This thesis is constructed upon Itamar Even-Zohar’s theory of literary polysystem and reviews the Chinese translations of the stories of Hans Christian Andersen in the past one hundred years. According to Even-Zohar, if translated literature is to maintain a central position in the literary polysystem, the translation must focus on adequacy. On the other hand, if the translated literature occupies a peripheral position in the literary polysystem, the translation should focus on acceptability. Different positions of translated literature in the polysystem will result in different strategies for translators.
In order to further discuss different versions of the Chinese translations of Andersen’s stories in the past one hundred years, I divided this timeline into five different periods of influence.
The first period was “the early period.” The translations at that time were influenced by translation norms of the late Qing dynasty and literally translated versions were not popular. Massive rewritings could be found in the translations in order to correspond with the culture of the target language.
The second period was during the time period known as “a campaign for new culture” and so the translated literature maintained a central position in the literary polysystem. Literal translation, therefore, was the strategy adapted by the translators of Andersen’s stories. Translations at this time focused on adequacy.
The third period occurred during the 1930s. During this period, translators of Andersen’s stories anticipated their readers to be children rather than educated people. The translations of this time period, therefore, developed towards a peripheral literature system for children rather than for adults. We can see simplification and didactic emphasis in these translations.
The forth period discussed the translations of the 1950s and 1960s in Taiwan. The literary system at this time maintained a peripheral position in the macro-polysystem. There were no new translations of Andersen’s stories. It was an empty period in the development of different versions of translation.
The fifth period spans from 1977 to the present day. The development of Andersen’s translations has been divided into systems for both children and adults. Prosperous development can be seen in the children’s literature system of this period, however, due to the restriction of self-image in children’s literature, a lot of adaptations appear. The adult system maintains a peripheral position in the polysystem and there are no new, adequate translations except for the translation of Yeh Jun-Jian.
In conclusion, translating Andersen’s stories into Chinese is not a mere language transferring process. The position of translated literature in the polysystem gives translators different ideas on how to translate. Personally, I suggested that translations in the future should have more variety in order to make up for the deficiency of old versions and to meet the needs of a range of different readers in the polysystem.

並列關鍵字

children’s literature ； translation ； adaptation ； Hans Christian Andersen ； polysystem ； Itamar Even-Zohar

參考文獻

Bliudzius, Arunas. “The Translation of H. C. Andersen into Latvian and Lithuanian Languages (Comparative Aspects).”Hans Chrustuan Andersen, APoet in Time. Ed. Johan de Mylius, Aage JØrgensen and Viggo HjØrnager Pedersen. Odense: Odense University Press,1999. 323-34.

Bassnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1998.

Dollerup, Cay. “Translation As A Creative Force in Literature: The Birth of the European Bourgeois Fairy-Tale.” Modern Language Review. 90(1):94-102.

Hervey, Sandor G. J. “Ideology and Strategy in Translating Children’s Literature.” Modern Language Studies 33.3 (1997):60-71.

Hunt, Peter. An Introduction to Children’s Literature. Oxford: OUP, 1994.