探1897至1916翻译规范之变化——以柯南·道尔《最后一案》中话语标记的翻译为例

张雨晴

doi:10.19857/j.cnki.ICL.20258307

探1897至1916翻译规范之变化——以柯南·道尔《最后一案》中话语标记的翻译为例

doi: 10.19857/j.cnki.ICL.20258307

张雨晴^,

北京外国语大学

详细信息

作者简介:
张雨晴，英国华威大学翻译与跨文化研究系博士，北京外国语大学高级翻译学院讲师。研究领域为翻译史、中国现代文学及中西比较文学。

通讯作者:
张雨晴,E-mail:Yuqing.Zhang.2@warwick.ac.uk

计量
- 文章访问数: 16
- HTML全文浏览量: 4
- PDF下载量: 2
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2025-03-01
- 录用日期: 2025-04-25

From Report to Description: Translation of Dialogue Tags in“The Adventure of the Final Problem”and Its Reflection of the Change of Translation Norms，1897-1916

ZHANG Yuqing^,

The University of Warwick;

More Information

Author Bio:
ZHANG Yuqing holds a PhD in Translation and Transcultural Studies from the University of Warwick. She currently works at the Graduate School of Translation & Interpretation（GSTI）, Beijing Foreign Studies University. Her research interests include translation studies, comparative literature and twentieth-century Chinese literature.

摘要

摘要: 清末民初，以福尔摩斯探案故事为代表的外国侦探小说汉译本陆续问世，侦探小说汉译也随之成为当时中国译界的一大主流。翻译理论家吉迪恩·图里指出，对译者的翻译行为进行描述，有利于揭示特定时期特定文化内部的文学规范与文化价值观的演变。本文在图里的描述性翻译理论框架下，以柯南·道尔《最后一案》、1897年《时务报》译本《呵尔唔斯缉案被戕》、1916年中华书局译本《悬崖撒手》，及相应的序言、跋文等外文本作为研究对象，探讨1897至1916年间中国翻译规范的历史演变及其背后的文化逻辑。通过考察译者对《最后一案》中话语标记的处理，本文发现1897年版的译者张坤德对描写性的话语标记进行了大幅删改，这一做法与清末译界提倡译者主动改写、充分开发外国小说教化功能的风气密切相关。而到了民国初年，随着“直译”理念的兴起，文学翻译实践日益追求对原文形式与内容的忠实还原，与此同时，小说的娱乐价值也逐渐得到认可。在此背景下，1916年版的译者严独鹤较大程度地保留了道尔原作话语标记中的描写性元素，体现出该时期翻译规范的变化与文化态度的转向。本文通过聚焦《最后一案》中话语标记的翻译，阐述了清末民初翻译规范如何受到时代背景、出版需求以及读者期待的多重影响，进而展现出这一时期中国社会、历史与文化的多维图景。
- 福尔摩斯 /
- 翻译规范 /
- 话语标记 /
- 张坤德 /
- 严独鹤
Abstract: This paper examines the 1897 and 1916 Chinese translations of “The Adventure of the Final Problem,” with a particular focus on the rendering of dialogue tags. I argue that the translation of dialogue tags functions not only as a linguistic task, but also as a lens through which the evolving literary and cultural norms that informed translation practices in late Qing and early Republican China can be observed. Dialogue tags, often dismissed as peripheral or mechanical elements of narrative, in fact play essential roles in shaping characterisation and managing the plot progression. The choices that translators make in rendering these elements reveal broader assumptions about the role of translation in the target culture and the expectations of the target readership. Drawing on Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies（1995）, I undertake a close textual analysis of both translations. This analysis is further supported by an investigation of relevant extratexts, including prefaces, epilogues, and translators’notes. The 1897 translation tends to omit the descriptive elements embedded in dialogue tags, such as the portrayals of tones and psychological nuances. These omissions often result in a flattening of characterisation and a reduction of narrative complexities. This tendency evinces the prevailing translation practices of the 1890s, when Chinese translators enjoyed considerable freedom to rewrite the source texts and were often encouraged to prioritise the didactic function of foreign fiction over its literary qualities. By contrast, the 1916 translation represents more of the descriptive subtleties and narrative dynamics of Doyle’s work. This shift aligned with the move towards “literal translation” and the increasing recognition of the entertainment value of fiction in the 1910s. By tracing the way in which dialogue tags were rendered into Chinese over nearly two decades, this paper offers insights into the transformation of translation norms in late Qing and early Republican China, as well as the historical, social, and cultural dynamics that shaped the introduction and reception of foreign literature at the time.
- Sherlock Holmes /
- dialogue tag /
- translation norm /
- Zhang Kunde /
- Yan Duhe

HTML全文

参考文献(41)

[1]	. 阿英《晚清小说史》,东方出版社,1996 年。
[2]	. 陈平原《中国小说叙事模式的转变》,北京大学出版社,2003 年。
[3]	. 陈平原《二十世纪中国小说史》第一卷·(1897 年-1916 年),北京大学出版社,1989 年。
[4]	. 陈熙绩《〈歇洛克奇案开场〉叙》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料(1902- 2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 25-26 页。
[5]	. 觚庵《觚庵漫笔(两篇)(节选)》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料(1902- 2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 22-23 页。
[6]	. 韩南《中国近代小说的兴起》,徐侠译,上海教育出版社,2010 年。
[7]	. 梁启超《论小说与群治之关系》,收入陈平原、夏晓虹编《二十世纪中国小说理论资料 (第一卷)1897-1916》,北京大学出版社,1997 年,第 50-54 页。
[8]	. 梁启超《〈十五小豪杰〉译后语》,收入陈平原、夏晓虹编《二十世纪中国小说理论资料 (第一卷)1897-1916》,北京大学出版社,1997 年,第 64 页。
[9]	. 梁启超《论报馆有益于国事》,《时务报》1896 年第 1 期,第 1-2 页。
[10]	. 林纾《〈歇洛克奇案开场〉序》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料(1902- 2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 26 页。
[11]	. 林纾《〈黑奴吁天录〉例言》,收入陈平原、夏晓虹编《二十世纪中国小说理论资料(第一卷)1897-1916》,北京大学出版社,1997 年,第 43-44 页。
[12]	. 林纾、魏易译《滑稽外史》,商务印书馆,1915 年。
[13]	. 林振武、郑海麟、魏明枢、郭真义编《黄遵宪年谱长编》下册,中华书局,2019 年。
[14]	. 刘半侬《跋》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料(1902-2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 35-37 页。
[15]	. 茅盾《我走过的道路》第一册,人民文学出版社,1981 年。
[16]	. 任翔、高媛《前言》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料(1902-2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 2 页。
[17]	. 商务印书馆主人《〈补译华生包探案〉序》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料 (1902-2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 14 页。
[18]	. 涂兵兰《清末译者的翻译伦理研究(1898-1911)》,湖南人民出版社,2013 年,第 167 页。
[19]	. 汪维辉《汉语"说类词"的历时演变与共时分布》,《中国语文》2003 年第 4 期,第 329- 342 页。
[20]	. 严独鹤《严序》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料(1902-2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 32 页。
[21]	. 严独鹤译《悬崖撒手》,收入《福尔摩斯侦探案全集》第七册,中华书局,1916 年,第 95- 107 页。
[22]	. 佚名《凡例》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料(1902-2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 34 页。
[23]	. 佚名《绍介新书〈福尔摩斯再生后之探案第十一、十二、十三〉》,收入任翔、高媛编《中国侦探小说理论资料(1902-2011)》,北京师范大学出版社,2013 年,第 15 页。
[24]	. 佚名《〈鲁宾孙漂流记〉译者识语》,收入陈平原、夏晓虹编《二十世纪中国小说理论资料 (第一卷)1897-1916》,北京大学出版社,1989 年,第 66 页。
[25]	. 张坤德译《呵尔唔斯缉案被戕》,《时务报》1897 年第 27-30 期。
[26]	. 张南峰《中西译学批评》,清华大学出版社,2004 年,第 132 页。
[27]	. 周树人《〈域外小说集〉序言》,收入陈平原、夏晓虹编《二十世纪中国小说理论资料(第一卷)1897-1916》,北京大学出版社,1989 年,第 376-377 页。
[28]	. 樽本照雄编《新编增补清末民初小说目录》,贺伟译,齐鲁书社,2002 年,第 169 页。
[29]	. Clare Clarke,"Doyle,Holmes and Victorian Publishing",in Janice M. Allan and Christopher Pittard,eds.,The Cambridge Companion to Sherlock Holmes,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2019,pp. 29-41.
[30]	. Clare Cobley,"Realism",in Janice Allan,Jesper Gulddal,Stewart King and Andrew Pepper, eds.,The Routledge Companion to Crime Fiction,London;New York:Routledge,2020,pp. 202-210.
[31]	. Charles Dickens,Nicholas Nickleby,London:Hazell,Watson & Viney,n. d..
[32]	. Arthur Conan Doyle,"The Adventure of the Final Problem",in The Strand Magazine,November 1893,pp. 559-570.
[33]	. Itamar Even-Zohar,"The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem",in Poetics Today 11,no. 1(1990),pp. 45-51.
[34]	. Edwin Gentzler,Contemporary Translation Theories,London;New York:Routledge,1993, pp. 133-134.
[35]	. Jesper Gulddal,"Clues",in Janice Allan,Jesper Gulddal,Stewart King and Andrew Pepper, ed.,The Routledge Companion to Crime Fiction,London;New York:Routledge,2020,pp. 194-201.
[36]	. Jeremy Munday,Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications,2nd edition, Abingdon;New York:Routledge,2008,pp. 111.
[37]	. Anton Popovič,"The Concept'Shift of Expression'in Translation Analysis",in James S. Holmes,ed.,The Nature of Translation:Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation,Berlin;Boston:De Gruyter Mouton,1970,pp. 78-87.
[38]	. Gideon Toury,Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond,Amsterdam;Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995,pp. 55-86.
[39]	. Bárbara Martínez Vilinsky,"Analysis of the Different Features and Functions of Dialogue in a Comparable Corpus of Crime Novels",in Susanne M. Cadera and Anita Pavić Pintarić,eds., The Voices of Suspense and Their Translation in Thrillers,Amsterdam;New York:Rodopi, 2014,pp. 239-255.
[40]	. Lawrence Wang-Chi Wong,"From'Controlling the Barbarians'to'Wholesale Westernization': Translation and Politics in Late Imperial and Early Republican China,1840-1919",in Eva Hung and Judy Wakabayashi,eds.,Asian Translation Traditions,Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing, 2005,pp. 109-134.
[41]	. Catherine Vance Yeh,The Chinese Political Novel,Cambridge,MA;London:Harvard University Asia Center,2015.