本文采用语料库方法,对比研究了汪榕培和理雅各的《道德经》英译本在词汇、句法和语篇三个层面上的异同。通过词汇特征、文化负载词、哲学术语的考察,揭示了两位译者在用词风格、文化诠释、哲理表达等方面的差异。在句法层面,通过分析...本文采用语料库方法,对比研究了汪榕培和理雅各的《道德经》英译本在词汇、句法和语篇三个层面上的异同。通过词汇特征、文化负载词、哲学术语的考察,揭示了两位译者在用词风格、文化诠释、哲理表达等方面的差异。在句法层面,通过分析句长、形合度等指标,发现理译本更注重形式对等,而汪译本更强调意义连贯。在语篇层面,通过比较连接词的使用、可读性等方面,进一步揭示了两个译本在衔接手段、阅读难度等方面的不同。综合运用定量和定性分析,多角度、多层面地考察了两位译者的翻译风格。This paper adopts a corpus-based approach to conduct a comparative study of Wang Rongpei’s and James Legge’s English translations of Tao Te Ching at the lexical, syntactic, and textual levels. Through the examination of lexical features, culture-loaded words, and philosophical terms, it reveals the differences between the two translators in terms of word choice, cultural interpretation, and philosophical expression. At the syntactic level, by analyzing indicators such as sentence length and hypotaxis, it is found that Legge’s version places more emphasis on formal equivalence, while Wang’s version focuses more on coherence of meaning. At the textual level, through comparing the use of conjunctions and readability, it further uncovers the differences between the two versions in terms of cohesive devices and reading difficulty. By combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, this study examines the translation styles of the two translators from multiple angles and levels.展开更多
文摘本文采用语料库方法,对比研究了汪榕培和理雅各的《道德经》英译本在词汇、句法和语篇三个层面上的异同。通过词汇特征、文化负载词、哲学术语的考察,揭示了两位译者在用词风格、文化诠释、哲理表达等方面的差异。在句法层面,通过分析句长、形合度等指标,发现理译本更注重形式对等,而汪译本更强调意义连贯。在语篇层面,通过比较连接词的使用、可读性等方面,进一步揭示了两个译本在衔接手段、阅读难度等方面的不同。综合运用定量和定性分析,多角度、多层面地考察了两位译者的翻译风格。This paper adopts a corpus-based approach to conduct a comparative study of Wang Rongpei’s and James Legge’s English translations of Tao Te Ching at the lexical, syntactic, and textual levels. Through the examination of lexical features, culture-loaded words, and philosophical terms, it reveals the differences between the two translators in terms of word choice, cultural interpretation, and philosophical expression. At the syntactic level, by analyzing indicators such as sentence length and hypotaxis, it is found that Legge’s version places more emphasis on formal equivalence, while Wang’s version focuses more on coherence of meaning. At the textual level, through comparing the use of conjunctions and readability, it further uncovers the differences between the two versions in terms of cohesive devices and reading difficulty. By combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, this study examines the translation styles of the two translators from multiple angles and levels.
