An Empirical Report On Translation Of The Cambridge Introduction To Russian Literature From The Perspective Of Translator’s Subjectivity

Since the founding of People’s Republic of China in 1949, China has begun to massively introduce Soviet literature. As Sino-Soviet relations broke up, exchanges between the two countries including literary exchanges trapped into stagnation. However, China has set off a upsurge in learning Russian literature in the literary community in the recent decade or more. To keep pace with times and to meet the needs of Chinese professionals, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) organizes to translate and publish tens of books on Russian literature every year. The author participated in the 2014 National Social Science Fund Major Program, project of translating nine English volumes of The Cambridge Russian Literature organized by CASS, and translated one book concerning the history of Russian literature, namely, The Cambridge Introduction to Russian Literature. As its translator, the author decided to take the translation as study object and finish this report under the guidance of the theory of translator’s subjectivity.Translator’s subjectivity refers to that on the premise of respect for the original text, the translator as the translation subject exerts subjective initiative to achieve some certain targets when translating, its basic features involving cultural consciousness of translation subject, humanistic character as well as cultural and aesthetic creation. Translator’s subjectivity mainly includes three aspects, namely, the option of the text, the use of translation methods and techniques as well as the language’s recreation. The report aims at summarizing features of this translation text based on vocabulary, sentence and passage and probing into the main translation methods and techniques in translation through typical cases, respectively on both aspects of vocabulary and sentence. In the last part, the author summarizes and makes a reflection on this translation, analyzing the reason why the author makes mistakes and the direction to strive in the future. This report fully proves that translator’s subjectivity is effective for the translation of literary history. The author expects that this translation practice report can make its due contribution to translation studies on literary history.