英语论文哪里有？通过对译文风格的分析，我们可以对这四个版本进行如下评价。康欣版本的整体结构是完整的。在语音层面上，与其他版本相比，感叹词、er后缀的计算数量最少，这表明康不太注意句子的语气。
Chapter One Introduction
1.3 Significance of the study
There is a widespread perception that different translators show different styles in their translations, but there is little empirical research on the role of a translator in producing the style of his translated version.
The investigation carried out in the present study differs from the most previous researches of the translator’s subjectivity in several ways. Firstly, this study is philosophy-based so that it provides an objective, descriptive, and rational method to study the translator’s subjectivity. Secondly, four Chinese versions of Charlotte’s Web are be selected as the research data, which is all-sided and persuasive. And finally, it has focused on the all related subjects in translation, which may be ignored in most of the studies.
The significance of the study can be revealed in the following aspects.
1) This study applies the social philosophy theory to translation studies, which provides a descriptive and replicable way to evaluate translation.
2) It makes a comprehensive and descriptive analysis of the relations between the translator and other translation subjects in the four Chinese versions of Charlotte’s Web, which gives an explanatory to the styles of the four versions.
3) This study riches the notion of the translator’s subjectivity, and intensify the status of the translator in translation.
Chapter Three The Theoretical Basis and Research Data
3.1 Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action
Jurgen Habermas, a prominent German philosopher as well as one of the most influential ideologists in the west since the latter half of the 20th century, undertakes the reconstruction of logos, and tries to establish the Theory of Communicative Action. Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action not only shares some similarities with Gadamer’s theory, but also exerts criticism to it, so as to establish a social critical theory based on the reasonable communication. Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action consists of the communication rationality, the truth consensus, the intersubjectivity, and the universal pragmatics.
3.1.1 The communication rationality
The communicative rationality is the central concept of Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action. In this theory, Habermas suggests that the criterion of behaviors in social activities and interactions should be regulated by the intersubjective mutual agreement including the rules and principles from the society rather than the subject from one side. To realize the communication rationality, the theory of communicative competence should be taken into consideration at first. The communicative competence refers to the ability that subjects with the aim of mutual understanding apply perfectly composed sentences to the life world and make them fit. It is the precondition of the realization of communicative rationality among subjects. Generally, the competence is made up of three important elements, including the competence of choosing locutionary sentences, the competence of expressing perlocutionary intention, and the competence of fulfilling illocutionary act. (Habermas, 1989) It is required by this theory that every subject involved in the communication should be efficient in interpreting, expressing and applying competence so as to reach a broad and intersubjective consensus. In all, those subjects who are not proficient in managing language and undertaking communication cannot implement the communication rationality.
Chapter Four The Translator’s Subjectivity in Light of the TCA on Four Chinese Versions of Charlotte’s Web
4.1 Constraints: the rightfulness claim in the social world
A Translation takes place in certain social and historical background, which requires communication to meet the demands in empirical world. A set of general rules and normative claims are prescribed to regulate the subject’s action. Under this circumstance, observing the rightfulness claim is the obligatory task for communicative subjects to reach consensus. The rightfulness claim asks translators to establish rational interpersonal relationship in the social world, developing inter-subjective consensus with all other subjects involved.
In translation, there are a number of different subjects, and the position of these subjects is equal. Apparently, the role of the translator lies in the center of translation. At first, the translator should have a frank conversation with the Source Text author to investigate the culture backgrounds and life experience so that the Source Text author’s intention and the meaning of the Source Text can be acquired. Secondly, facing the Target Text readers, translators build up equal dialogical relations for different readers and strive to achieve his translation purpose. At last, in shaping the characters of the Source Text, the translator should respect the norms of Target Language, namely interact with the patronage, and other translators for mutual understanding. In short, the translator should thoroughly grasp the reciprocal relations in the social world and handle them flexibly in translation. If the translator fails to conduct interactive relationship with the subjects in the social world, the rightfulness claim cannot be reached and it may leads to unacceptable translation.
4.2 Manifestation: the truthfulness claim in the objective world and the sincerity claim in the subjective world
The translator, on the one hand, as the negotiator among all the translation subjects, has to deal with all the constraints in the Source Text and the entire social context; on the other hand, he displays his initiative and tries to accomplish his task successfully. Translation is a coordinate activity of all subjects involved. Once the balance was broken, it will make the translation results biased. Though the pursuit of ideal translation versions is endless, we must abide the objectivity in the objective world from all aspects in social contexts in order to make the translation acceptable.
Besides, according to Habermas (2004), language user should show true and expressive intention in order to make other subjects to trust and understand his personality and needs. It means that language users should set up an expressive communication schema in the subjective world to guarantee the success of communicative action. Translation theorists lay emphasis on translators’ strategies and techniques in translating process. What is more, subjective factors, such as translators’personality, psychological talents, cultural makings as well as linguistic managements, and ethnical standpoint do have great influences on translation activity. Meanwhile, what we must bear in mind is that all the translator’s behaviors take place in the subjective world, but the objective world and the social world do have some influences on these behaviors. The sincerity claim in translation refers to the sincere attitude held by the translator who should respect the general meaning of the Source Text and specific emotions expressed by the Source Text author. Hence, the translator should interact with the Source Text author genuinely, instead of tampering with the general meaning and the contents of the Source Text as he or she likes, which is responsible for the Source Text author as well as for the society. (Lv, 2002)
Conclusion
5.1 The evaluations of the Chinese versions of Charlotte’s Web
In translating Charlotte’s Web, each of the translator aims to reach the validity claims in the “life world”, in order to achieve the mutual understanding with the other subjects in the translation activity, including the Target Text readers, the Source Text author, the patronage, and the other translators. On the one hand, the communications are the process for translators to show their subjectivity. On the other hand, the translator is constrained by the other subjects in the communications. So the translator’s subjectivity is the combination of initiative and passivity, and the combinations are dynamic and various because different communicative actions result in distinctive styles of translations. By means of analyzing and describing the translator’s subjectivity from the perspective of the Theory of Communicative Action in the four Chinese versions of Charlotte’s Web in chapter four, here we present an all-around evaluation of the four versions.
From the analysis of the Target Text style, we can evaluate the four versions as follows. The overall structure of Kang Xin’s version is unabridged. At the phonological Level, comparing with other versions, the number of the calculation of interjections, er-suffix is the least, which shows that Kang does not pay much attention to the tone of the sentence. At the lexical level, Kang’s chapter titles are more concise and faithful to the features of the Source Text, some choices of words in translation are relatively formal, and other content words conform to the corresponding social background and people’s habitual use. At the syntactic level, Kang employs many passive sentences in translation. Kang’s sentence structures are not idiomatic to some extent though she simplifies the long sentence and uses reiterated words sometimes. At the rhetorical level, the rhetorical devices used in Kang’s version is the most, and Kang often translates the phrases to four-character idioms, which makes her version elegant and beautiful. The obvious characteristics of Kang’s version are the words and four-character idioms.
reference(omitted)
