語內與語際翻譯：論《天方夜譚》的兩種中文改寫版

Abstract

五四運動後的翻譯研究多關注文言小說，尤其以林紓、嚴復、周桂笙等譯家為大宗，內容多為分析當代社會對照故事情節，以及比較角色刻劃居多，少見從胡適所提倡的新文學工具「白話文」的角度出發，因此我想探討從五四運動後，以「白話文」----又稱「語體版」----所翻譯的文學譯作。以「白話文」書寫或譯寫小說，必非五四運動後才有的現象，早在明朝就出現以白話文書寫的章回體小說、清朝更有著名的《紅樓夢》。直到梁啟超推動的「小說界革命」後：「翻譯小說被當作『新小說』的範本被引進中國，一方面提供作家創作的刺激與借鑑，另一方面開拓中國讀者視野。」因此我選擇了歷經多國語言翻譯的阿拉伯文學，世界經典名著《天方夜譚》作為研究主題。賴慈芸指出，「H.M.本在20世紀上半葉的中國相當受歡迎」，其中一本中譯本是屺瞻生與天笑生版（簡稱：屺版），於1928年出版。而林俊千版本（簡稱：林版），為屺版的以及二十年後，1948年的林俊千版本（簡稱：林版）則是「參考屺瞻生、天笑生版本的語內翻譯」。據上述研究為起點，本研究將以「林版為改寫自屺版的語內翻譯 」為研究基礎，輔以H. M.版本的英文版及當時奚若譯本，我擬從三大研究面向----「兩版文意探討、從修辭看文體風格、用字遣詞的文白程度」----解析兩版的「語內翻譯及語際翻譯」現象。我比較的結果顯示，故事內容的部分，林版不完全是根據屺版的內容進行語內翻譯，他也參考了當時盛行的H. M.版本及奚若文言文版本。乍看之下，林版僅針對屺版做改寫，但他實際上針對屺版故事細節加以修正，用英文底本及奚若中譯本做對照並重寫。文字使用上，文白程度的拿捏，兩版就彷彿各自偏向光譜的兩端，本研究從二十一世紀的現代中文角度，回顧屺版與林版的語體版中譯本：屺版的特色是擅於使用成語、俗諺，常見到偏文言的用法，融入白話文之中，文意上則屬於中規中矩的翻譯。林版在使用白話文的程度，明顯比屺版高出許多，文意上除了參考H. M.版本及奚若版本，也不乏會有自創情節的現象。看似對英文及文言文底本不忠實，但若從前後文的連貫性來看，林版比起屺版的前後文一致性是相對較高的。The translation studies after the May Fourth Movement largely focus on classical Chinese fiction, especially the works of translators such as Lin Shu, Yan Fu, and Zhou Guisheng, with a primary emphasis on analyzing contemporary society through story plots and comparing character portrayals. It is rare to approach the subject from the perspective of"vernacular Chinese," the new literary tool advocated by Hu Shi. Therefore, I aim to explore the literary translations after the May Fourth Movement from the perspective of "vernacular Chinese"—also known as the "colloquial version." Writing or translating novels in "vernacular Chinese" was not a phenomenon that emerged only after the May Fourth Movement. As early as the Ming Dynasty, there were novels written in the vernacular Chinese language, and the Qing Dynasty saw the famous Dream of the Red Chamber. It was not until the"novel revolution" promoted by Liang Qichao that "translated novels were introduced to China as models for 'new novels,' which not only stimulated and inspired writers but also broadened the horizons of Chinese readers." Therefore, I have chosen Arabic literature, the world-renowned classic One Thousand and One Nights as my research topic. It has undergone translation into multiple languages, and Lai Ciyun pointed out that "the H.M. English version was quite popular in China in the first half ofthe 20th century," with one Chinese translation being the Qi Zhansheng and Tian Xiaosheng version (referred to as the Qi version), which was published in 1928. The Lin Junqian version (referred to as the Lin version), which came 20 years later in 1948, was "based on the Qi version, with reference to the Qi Zhansheng and Tian Xiaosheng's translation." Based on the research of Lai Ciyun mentioned above, my study will take "Lin version as a revision of the Qi version through internal translation" as its research foundation, supplemented by the English H.M. version and the translation by Xi Ruo from that period. I plan to analyze the"Intralingual translation and Interlingual translation" phenomena in the two versions from three major research aspects: "comparison of the two versions' meanings, analysis of rhetorical style, and the level of literary language used in word choice." The comparison results show that in terms of story content, the Lin version is not entirely based on the Qi version for intralingual translation. It also references the popular H.M. version and Xi Ruo's classical Chinese translation at the time. Atfirst glance, the Lin version appears to be a rewrite or even a more colloquial copy of the Qi version, but in reality, it makes modifications to the details of the Qi version's story, using the English original and Xi Ruo's Chinese translation for comparison and rewriting. In terms of language use, the balance between classical and vernacular styles in the two versions seems to lean toward opposite ends of the spectrum. From the perspective of modern 21st-century Chinese, this study reviews the vernacular Chinese translations of both the Qi and Lin versions: the Qi version is characterized by its use of idioms, proverbs, and often classical Chinese expressions blended into the vernacular. Its translation style tends to follow traditional norms. The Lin version, in contrast, uses vernacular Chinese much more extensively than the Qi version, and the meaning often references not only the H.M. and Xi Ruo versions but also includes original narrative details. While it may appear to be unfaithful to both the English and classical Chinese texts, the coherence of the narrative in the Lin version is actually higher than in the Qi version when considering the consistency of the story.