以華氏451 探討兩岸科幻小說翻譯的異同

A Case Study on Fahrenheit 451 as a Comparative Study of Translations of Science Fiction between China and Taiwan

本研究以郭建中(2004)的科幻小說三項翻譯標準（文學性、科學性、通俗性）為基礎進行分析，旨在比較《華氏451》一書的繁簡中文譯本的異同。就文學面向而言，兩譯本都偏好使用四字成語或疊字讓譯文更簡潔有力。當原文用排比結構時，兩譯本也會遵循該結構以產生同樣的效果。兩譯本的差異在於，繁體版傾向忠於原文，喜歡直譯，而簡體版則偏好跳脫原文，用重述的方式來呈現小說中的場景及人物。繁體版譯文大多能藉此更精確地呈現小說中的場景及人物，惟有時免不了過度詮釋。就科學面向而言，科技新詞為討論主軸。不論是于(2006)的繁體譯本或蘇(2005)的簡體譯本，譯者都不另外造新詞而使用已存在目標語中對應的科技詞彙。若找不到直接對應的詞彙，繁體版傾向直譯並忠實呈現原文的標點符號，而簡體版傾向忽略原文字首大寫的用法並使用描述性詞彙，讓讀者能更容易理解文本中的科學特質。就通俗面向而言，無論是字詞或是句子層面，兩譯本都有佳作，兩名譯者都大膽重組甚至改寫句子結構讓譯文符合中文語法。然而，兩名譯者都難避偶爾過於貼字面，導致譯文生硬。藉由分析真實的翻譯實例，本研究希望可提供譯者學習仿效，做為避免犯相同錯誤的參考依據。

Based on Guo’s (2004) three criteria for translating science fiction (literariness,scientificity, and popularity), this study aims at comparing the similarities anddifferences between simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese versions ofFahrenheit 451. From a literary perspective, both versions favored using eitherfour-character Chinese idioms or repeated words to create an eloquent and powerfulimage. When parallel structures were used in the source text, they both rendered thetranslation with the same structure to maintain similar effects. The difference was thatthe traditional Chinese version stayed faithful to the original by rendering the textliterally, while the other version paraphrased the text. The former approach providedmore accurate translation of the scenes and characters, but sometimes it departed fromthe source text. From a scientific perspective, technological neologisms werediscussed. Both Yu’s (2006) and Zhu’s (2005) versions did not coin new lexical items.Instead, they translated technological neologisms with equivalents in the targetlanguage. If no direct equivalent was available, Yu preferred following thepunctuation of the original faithfully and translated the terms literally. Conversely,Zhu preferred ignoring the usage of capitals in the source language and employeddescriptive expressions in rendition, which helped the readers understand thescientific features in the novel. From a popular perspective, no matter it was at lexical,phrasal, or sentential levels, both translators provided some excellent translations byboldly rearranging syntactic structures of the original to accommodate Chinese usage.Nevertheless, both translators sometimes stayed too close to the source text, so theirtranslations seemed unnatural to the target readers. Through analyzing translationextracted from publications, this study hopes to offer translators some references tolearn from and to avoid making similar errors.