| 摘要: | 歷來的研究指出鳩摩羅什的翻譯雖然無法完整反映原典的語文，卻因為能以流暢的漢語表現，故受到漢地讀者的歡迎；而玄奘的翻譯恰好與之相反，是個忠於原典，卻難以流傳的譯本，這涉及了兩人在漢譯佛典譯經史的新舊譯之爭的問題，過去的研究成果僅限於抽象的敘述。本論文嘗試從語言風格的分析切入，並輔以梵漢對勘的方式，希望能詳盡觀察兩種不同翻譯策略下的漢譯佛典文本，在語言層面上能否流行。筆者選定考察的對象是《金剛經》。
本論文共分五章，第一章緒論，說明研究動機、目的、方法，及回顧前人相關研究，並論述《金剛經》的語料價值，提出本文所欲探究的核心問題。第二章是二人譯本實詞的風格比較，首先分析意譯詞中能表現對梵漢文化或是思想的差異的案例，以及討論音譯詞和合璧詞的相關問題。第三章是虛詞風格比較，希望看出譯師如何轉換梵漢彼此間的語法格式。第四章是句型風格比較，前半部將考察「關聯詞語」，主要討論連詞和副詞的部分。後半部則是考察譯師彼此不同的考量，其譯文對於梵文句子的三種改寫方式：増譯、略譯、轉換。最後透過上述風格分析結果，重新省思過往對於羅什和玄奘的譯本評價。
;In the past studies, scholars indicate that Kumarajiva’s translation can not completely reflect exactly the original text, but the word of his translation was fluent in Chinse, and this make it been popular in Chinese readers community. On the contrary, even though Xuanzang’s translation is loyal to the original Text, it is difficult to spread among the people. The fact which involves the problems of the old translation and new translation in the Chinese Buddhist translation history, the past studies often discuss abstractly in this topic. This paper attempt to investigate the Chinese Buddhist scriptures under two different translation strategies, whether it can be popular at the aspect of language by the approaches of the linguistic stylistics and Sanskrit-Chinese comparative analysis. The object of my study is " Diamond Sutra ".
This paper is divided into five chapters, the first chapter described my motivation, purpose, method, and review of previous studies, and discusses the value of "Diamond Sutra" as a corpus, and present the core issue of my paper. The second chapter compare the style of content words of Kumarajiva’s translation and Xuanzang’s translation. This analysis can show different understanding problems between Chinese and Sanskrit in culture or thought aspect. Besides that, I will also analysis the related issues of loanwords and transliterated-and-liberally-translated words. The third chapter compare the style of function words of Kumarajiva’s translation and Xuanzang’s translation. I hope to observe how they translate Sanskrit grammar to Chinese grammar. The fourth chapter is relative to comparative analysis sentence style. The first part will investigate the "conjunctive words ", the main objects of discussion are conjunctions and adverbs. The second part is to investigate different translator who considerations different from each other, and consequently to its translation to translate the Sanskrit sentence into Chinese. There are three ways of their translation: increase translation, ellipsis, and conversion of sentence structure of source language. Finally, through above results of the analysis, I try to reflect the appraisal about Kumarajiva’s translation and Xuanzang’s translations in the past studies. |
