Re-creative Treason In The Way To Faithfulness In Literary Translation

On discussion of literary translation, people may immediately come up with the widely-spread saying: Traduttore traditore. The betraying nature of translation derives from the conversion between languages. In translation, a piece of works is put into another language symbolic system where the references between words and meanings are not the same, and the mechanic conversion will definitely lead to treason as a result. The bad consequence resulted from the simple copy of the original language forms in translation provides for us with some reason for treason on the level of language conversion. The seemingly clumsy fidelity may lead to real treason due to the deviation from the original meaning, while ingenious treason on the level of language may lead to real faithfulness because transformations on the basis of being faithful to the original meaning will ultimately correct the treason lo the original. There is a saying about the dialectic relationship between faithfulness and treason: I betray because I do not betray, I do not betray because I betray. The way of treason in literary translation is unavoidable. With the change of language reference system, cultural context and conditions that the existence of meanings relies on, changes will happen to the SL text. What the translator does in order to make the translation take on a new look is no doubt creative. In his book titled Yi Jie Xue, Xie Tianzhen points out that creation and treason cannot be separated from each other in literary translation practice. For a long lime, the translator has been defined as a "servant", while (reason is one of the natures of translation, which serves as the basis for the subjectivity of the translator from aspects of theory and practice. The recognition of creative treason means the confirmation of subjectivity, liberating the translator from the traditional status as the servant. However the exploitation of his subjectivity is limited, so is his creativity. That is lo say, the creativity in lilerary translation is not the same as the creativity in original literary writing. Therefore, it's better to say that re-creation and treason cannot be separated from each other in literary translation practice. This will help to re-locate the status of the translator, avoiding going fromone extreme of being a servant to another extreme ot" being a free creator, and will provide a better guide tor literary translation Irom aspects of theory and practice, achieving faithfulness by means of appropriate instead of inappropriate treason while exploiting his subjectivity in order not to bring about treason as a result in the name of creation. This thesis aims at expounding re-creative treason in literary translation by comparing two Chinese versions of David Cupperfield. It is divided into five parts. The first chapter points out that faithfulness is the aim of literary translation and the faithfulness in literary translation is the agreement with the artistic quality in the SL text; the second chapter expounds the hard situation the translator is in where he is like a shackled dancer, therefore, the exploitation of the translator's subjectivity is reasonably limited; the third chapter, by comparing literary translation and literary writing -and analyzing the translator's subjectivity, points out the artistic, re-creative quality and the unavoidable treason as a means in literary translation; the fourth chapter, from the aspect of translation practice, mainly by making comparisonbetween the two translated versions of David Copperfield, points out that re-creative treason plays an important role, and that it is the way to faithfulness in literary translation; the fifth chapter brings the thesis to a conclusion by listing some key points that much attention should be paid to in literary translation.