On Hermeneutics And Translator's Subjectivity In Literary Translation

As one of the most important elements in the translation process, the subjective role of the translator has been neglected for a long time. In traditional translation theories, translators were always regarded as servants or transparent glass. However, with the cultural turn in translation studies, the subjectivity of the translator has being taken seriously and further studied, which gradually becomes a heated topic in the translation circle. This thesis attempts to use modern hermeneutics as a theoretical framework to analyze the translator's subjective role with proof from translation practice.Hermeneutics is a study of understanding and interpreting the meaning of the text, which illuminates the process of translation, for all translations start with understanding. The thesis begins with some definitions in philosophy, hence the discussion of subject and subjectivity of translator is brought forward. With a review of the study on the translator's subjective role which concerns hermeneutics, the author finds that so far the relative monograph and articles have always focused on the general introduction of hermeneutic theories. Although all the researchers agree that the application of hermeneutics to translation studies helps to highlight the translator's role as a subjective and historical interpreter, yet their research mainly resides in the study of translation theories and has not shown clearly, in the translation practice, how to analyze the factors that affect the translator's interpretation. Based on this point, the thesis sets out from the philosophical hermeneutic theory of Hans-Georg Gadamer, adopting his explanatory concepts of "historicality of understanding", "prejudice" and "fusion of horizons" as theoretical basis. Taking two Chinese versions of Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter as a case study, this thesis aims to reveal the manifestation of the translator's subjectivity in the literary translation process.The thesis holds that both the translator and the text are historical existence in nature. Different translators affected by different social-historical background would inevitably present the text historically. Therefore, no truly objective and faithful translation exists. Because of the historicality of understanding, misreading in interpretation is unavoidable. Special historical periods inevitably witness purposive translation. Cultural filtering is necessary since the translator's horizon could never be the same as the author's. Prejudice resulting in creative treason shows that translation is not merely a simple copying of the source text.In conclusion, the thesis points out: since translation is a creating process in which the translator will unavoidably make subjective interferences, we should acknowledge that, on the one hand, the subjectivity of the translator as historical existence can by no means be ignored in translation studies; on the other hand, the exertion of the translator's subjectivity is not a wholly free and arbitrary manifestation disregarding the original intention of the author and the text. The translator has to realize his social, historical and cultural responsibilities, avoiding taking his subjectivity as an excuse for careless translation; he should fulfill his duties and try to make good translations to meet the needs of time.