諷刺文學之翻譯：以《格列佛遊記》四個中譯本為例

Abstract

Gulliver's Travels（俗稱《格列佛遊記》，以下皆以《格列佛遊記》稱呼此書）為愛爾蘭作家強納森・綏夫特（Jonathan Swift, 1667-1745）的著名代表作。然而，當今讀者若非讀過原作，恐怕難以讀懂弦外之音。有鑑於此，筆者選擇四位側重文化脈絡、時代背景與諷刺筆法的譯者，分析他們對原作諷刺效果的理解程度，以及如何呈現諷刺之意。 本篇論文選定四本各具特色的譯本，分別為1934年清末民初翻譯家伍光建的選譯本、1948年張建的譯本（中國第一本全譯本）、1995年楊昊成以張健為基礎重譯的版本，以及2004年國科會邀請單德興翻譯的版本（台灣第一本全譯本），並以諷刺文學常搭配之三種修辭技巧分類，從誇飾、諷喻、反語分析各版譯文的諷刺效果與原作是否相當，為未來相關研究提供參考。透過大量譯例與譯註分析，筆者發現伍光建以評點家自居，不時介入詮釋，充分展現譯者的個人風格。此外，伍版用字直白，帶有強烈情感色彩，諷刺效果不時超越原作。張版和楊版論翻譯理念和風格不相上下，兩者皆以譯註輔助介紹作品諷刺本質。單版於原文理解或譯文表現優異，抽絲剝繭發現隱晦的言外之意。此外，不同於張版和楊版的譯註僅點到為止，單版的譯註完備，以詳盡的歷史典故讓讀者領會影射對象，享受當時讀者對號入座的樂趣。Gulliver's Travels, written by the Irish author Jonathan Swift, is a renowned masterpiece that has been reprinted countless times since its publication in 1726. However, modern readers who are unfamiliar with the original text or the political struggles and societal issues of 18th century England may find it difficult to grasp its underlying meanings. In light of this, the author of this paper has chosen four translators who emphasize cultural context, historical background, and satirical effects to analyze their understanding of satire shown through the original text and how sarcasm is conveyed in translation.This thesis selects four distinctive translated versions for analysis: Kwang-Kien Ｗoo’s translation from 1934, Jian Zhang’s 1948 version (the first complete translation in China), Hao-Cheng Yang’s 1995 version based on Zhang’s translation, and Te-Hsing Shan’s 2004 translation (the first complete translation in Taiwan). By analyzing rhetorical devices often used in satire—hyperbole, allegory, and verbal irony—the study compares the satirical effects in these translations to the original text, providing a reference for future related research. Through extensive analysis of examples and annotations, the author concludes that Kwang-Kien Ｗoo, adopting the role of a literary critic, frequently intervenes with interpretations, showing the translator’s personal style. Woo’s version employs language with strong emotional undertones, sometimes intensifying the satirical effects compared to the original. Jian Zhang’s and Hao-Cheng Yang’s translation strategies are fairly similar, with both using annotations to introduce the satirical essence of the work. Te-Hsing Shan’s version stands out in its comprehension of the original text and the quality of its translation, meticulously unraveling hidden implications. Additionally, unlike the few and brief annotations in Zhang and Yang’s versions, Shan’s annotations are thorough, incorporating detailed historical references that help readers identify the targets of satire, thereby recreating the sense of enjoyment experienced by contemporary readers who recognized political figures in the satire.