A comparison of poetic imagery processing in the translations of when you are old from the perspective of manipulation theory: a case study of Yuan Kejia's and Fu Hao's versions
操纵理论视角下When You Are Old译本的诗歌意象处理比较——以袁可嘉和傅浩译本为例

摘要

本研究以勒菲弗尔操纵理论为框架，旨在探究社会文化因素如何影响诗歌翻译中意象的处理策略，具体比较分析叶芝名作《当你老了》袁可嘉与傅浩译本的差异。研究聚焦原诗核心意象，运用文本细读与比较分析法，深入考察意识形态、诗学观念及赞助人力量对两位译者翻译决策的操纵作用。研究发现，袁可嘉译本倾向异化，力求保留原诗宗教文化意象和象征主义诗学特质，此举反映了改革开放初期中国意识形态对西方文学接纳包容的态度，以及学术型赞助人对忠实再现原作艺术内核的要求。傅浩译本则更多运用归化策略，注重普适性和可读性，弱化特定宗教联想、强化意象的抒情性与画面感，这体现了译者对当代读者多元意识形态的敏感，以及市场型赞助人对译本美感、情感共鸣及接受度的需求。研究表明，袁译与傅译在诗歌意象处理上的显著差异，根本上是译者身处不同历史时期，在特定意识形态环境、主流诗学规范及赞助人力量综合操纵下，与源语文本、目标语文化及个人翻译理念进行协商的结果。该案例有力证实，诗歌翻译绝非单纯的语言转换或对“忠实”的单一追求，而是一个受多重社会文化因素深刻形塑的动态重写过程。理解翻译文本，尤其是富含文化意象的诗歌译本，必须将其置于产生的具体历史、文化语境及译者个人因素中进行综合考量。

Abstract

This study draws on Lefevere’s Manipulation Theory to explore how socio-cultural factors influence the treatment of imagery in poetry translation, through a comparative analysis of two Chinese versions of W.B. Yeats’s well-known poem When You Are Old—translated by Yuan Kejia and Fu Hao, respectively. Focusing on the poem’s core images and employing close reading and comparative methods, this research examines how ideology, poetics, and patronage shaped the two translations. The results show that Yuan Kejia’s version leans toward foreignization, preserving the religious-cultural imagery and symbolic poetics of the original. This approach reflects both the receptive attitude of Chinese ideology toward Western literature in the early Reform and Opening-Up era and the academic patronage demand for faithful reproduction of the source text’s artistic essence. In contrast, Fu Hao’s translation more frequently employs domestication, emphasizing universal appeal and readability. It softens specific religious references while enhancing the lyrical and visual qualities of the imagery. This reflects the translator’s responsiveness to contemporary readers’ diverse ideologies as well as market-driven expectations for aesthetic value, emotional impact, and acceptability. The study demonstrates that the pronounced differences in translating poetic imagery between the two versions ultimately stem from each translator’s negotiation with the source text, the target culture, and their own translational ethos, under the influence of distinct ideological conditions, prevailing poetic conventions, and patronage forces. This case strongly affirms that poetry translation is not merely a linguistic transfer or a narrow pursuit of “fidelity”. Rather, it constitutes a dynamic act of rewriting deeply embedded within socio-cultural constraints. To fully appreciate a translated work—especially one rich with cultural imagery like poetry—it must be situated within specific historical and cultural context, alongside careful consideration of the translator’s agency.