功能对等理论视角下《红楼梦》中饮食名称翻译的对比研究.doc

  • 需要金币1000 个金币
  • 资料包括:完整论文
  • 转换比率:金钱 X 10=金币数量, 即1元=10金币
  • 论文格式:Word格式(*.doc)
  • 更新时间:2017-09-08
  • 论文字数:7545
  • 当前位置论文阅览室 > 外语论文 > 英语论文 >
  • 课题来源:(佩佩教授)提供原创文章

支付并下载

Abstract

 

Hong Lou Meng, one of China’s Four Great Classical Novels, is a masterpiece of Chinese classical literature. Because of its vital importance in Chinese literature, research on the translation of Hong Lou Meng also occupies a significant position in Chinese translation circle. This paper compares the two English translation versions in terms of food names in Hong Lou Meng, excluding the drinks as well as dry and fresh fruits, and chases down the reasons why the two translators choose different translation strategies. Using Functional Equivalence Theory as its theoretical basis, this paper finds out that A Dream of Red Mansions, translated by Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang, is more loyal to the original text while The Story of the Stone, translated by David Hawkes and John Minford, pays more attention to the acceptability of target language readers. Finally, this paper aims to explore some practical suggestions for later diet-related translation practices.

 

Keywords:Hong Lou Meng; functional equivalence; food names; translation strategy

 

Contents

Abstract

摘  要

1. Introduction-1

1.1 Introduction to Hong Lou Meng and Its Translations-1

1.2 Rationale and Significance of this Paper-1

1.3 Main Content and Originalities-2

2. Literature Review-3

2.1 Current Situations at Home and Abroad-3

2.1.1 Domestic Comparative Studies of the Two English Versions-3

2.1.2 Overseas Studies-4

2.2 Existing Problems-5

3. Introduction to Functional Equivalence Theory-6

3.1 Main Ideas-6

3.2 Principles for Producing Functional Equivalence-7

4. Comparative Analyses-8

4.1 Food Names Concerning Ingredients-8

4.2 Food Names Concerning Cooking Techniques-9

4.3 Food Names Concerning Cultural Allusions-10

5. Conclusion-12

5.1 Major Findings and Suggestions-12

5.1.1 Major Findings-12

5.1.2 Some Suggestions-12

5.2 Limitations of the Study-13

References-14

Appendix-16