挖東牆補西牆－－談梁實秋中譯「補牆」一詩中，原意的佚失

And This Goes to That: On Shi-qiu Liang's Chinese Translation of Robert Frost's Mending Wall

在20世紀的中國，翻譯的理論與實踐和「棄古文從白話」的革新風潮關聯密切，尤其是在1919年的「五四運動」之後。晚清之間，政府機關往來和科舉考試皆以文言從之，而民間老百姓日常溝通，講的則是各省的方言土話。隨著西風東漸中國積弱與西方新科技的到來，晚清和民初深感挫敗的知識份子遂認為，書寫系統和口語表達的逕渭分流太過綁手綁腳，因而呼籲口說語言應當直接進入書寫系統，藉此揚棄行政體系素來的保守意識形態；繼之以「師夷長技以制夷」理念的影響，中國於是戮力將世界各國的文學與文獻翻譯成白話文，希冀除去「中文本身」以及「中文和外語」之間的雙重矛盾。本篇論文擬再訪梁實秋先生的英詩中譯－「補牆」（原作為美國詩人彿洛斯特／Robert Frost的「Mending Wall」）。就象徵意義來說，本詩的主題適巧對映了當時中國「去地域化」的企圖，欲泯除「自我本身之內」以及「自我與他者」之間雙重藩籬。但是當時的白話文本身也正處於實驗與推廣的階段，羽翼未豐，在翻譯的過程中，或因求新求變，或因曲解原文之故，同時也吸收了許多外來的語彙與句法。在「補牆」一詩中，梁先生大抵正確掌握了原作中的主旨，但譯文中多處的精準度掌握，的確是有待商榷。本文將細部討論梁先生譯文當中的直譯，隱晦，句法怪異，以及邏輯不通順之處。基本面象是：如果譯者曲解了原文中多處重要的議題，那麼談論翻譯風格上的「直譯／異化」與「意譯／歸化」之爭，是否為本末倒置呢？還有，為求白話與口語，是否就非得要全面揚棄古文中的優美與洗鍊呢？

Until late-Ching Dynasty, Classical Chinese had prevailed as the norm of writing for national exams and government documentations-although citizens spoke different dialects for daily communication. With the flamboyant influences and new technologies from the west, many frustrated Chinese intellectuals in late-Ching Dynasty (and early democratic China) felt that this split between writing system and colloquial use was foot-binding; they urged that people should just write what was actually spoken, so as to crack down the stylistic bureaucracy that necessarily involved conservatism. Alongside, under the propagation to 'learn from the foreign to counteract the foreign,' China also started to translate assiduously literatures from the world into Vernacular Chinese so as to tear down the double wall, as it were, both within as well as without. The focus of this critical trial aims to revisit Mr. Liang's Chinese translation of Robert Frost's 'Mending Wall,' which is symbolic of the Chinese attempt to de-territorialize the distinction between Self and Other. But Vernacular Chinese was then just being experimented and thus not fully fledged. Many foreign dictions and syntactic structures were thus unnecessarily imported into the Vernacular Chinese corpus because of misunderstanding, or under the contention/pretension that Vernacular Chinese needed to be implemented by certain foreignness to enrich itself. In term of Frost's major theme, Mr. Liang has to be regarded as being conscientious, but his translation techniques are not unproblematic. My discussion will focus on his direct transplanting, obscurity, syntactical inappropriateness, and illogic flow. The fundamental issue is-if some of the crucial arguments in the source text have been misinterpreted in the first place, is it still worthwhile to argue about literal translation (foreignization) and free translation (domestication)? Wouldn't it be like putting the horse before the cart? Furthermore, does Classical Chinese have to be completely rid off so as to stay purely vernacular? These are the questions the author wishes to explore. 在20世紀的中國，翻譯的理論與實踐和「棄古文從白話」的革新風潮關聯密切，尤其是在1919年的「五四運動」之後。晚清之間，政府機關往來和科舉考試皆以文言從之，而民間老百姓日常溝通，講的則是各省的方言土話。隨著西風東漸中國積弱與西方新科技的到來，晚清和民初深感挫敗的知識份子遂認為，書寫系統和口語表達的逕渭分流太過綁手綁腳，因而呼籲口說語言應當直接進入書寫系統，藉此揚棄行政體系素來的保守意識形態；繼之以「師夷長技以制夷」理念的影響，中國於是戮力將世界各國的文學與文獻翻譯成白話文，希冀除去「中文本身」以及「中文和外語」之間的雙重矛盾。本篇論文擬再訪梁實秋先生的英詩中譯－「補牆」（原作為美國詩人彿洛斯特／Robert Frost的「Mending Wall」）。就象徵意義來說，本詩的主題適巧對映了當時中國「去地域化」的企圖，欲泯除「自我本身之內」以及「自我與他者」之間雙重藩籬。但是當時的白話文本身也正處於實驗與推廣的階段，羽翼未豐，在翻譯的過程中，或因求新求變，或因曲解原文之故，同時也吸收了許多外來的語彙與句法。在「補牆」一詩中，梁先生大抵正確掌握了原作中的主旨，但譯文中多處的精準度掌握，的確是有待商榷。本文將細部討論梁先生譯文當中的直譯，隱晦，句法怪異，以及邏輯不通順之處。基本面象是：如果譯者曲解了原文中多處重要的議題，那麼談論翻譯風格上的「直譯／異化」與「意譯／歸化」之爭，是否為本末倒置呢？還有，為求白話與口語，是否就非得要全面揚棄古文中的優美與洗鍊呢？