【正文】 方式進行不同的闡釋。翻譯活動也從傳統(tǒng)的原作者“獨白”和無限度的讀者闡釋，走向了原作者、文本譯者、譯文與譯文讀者之間的積極對話。在翻譯的過程中，譯者處于整個對話活動的中心位置, 扮演著讀者和譯文作者的雙重角色。闡釋學視角給翻譯研究注入了新的活力，帶來了新的研究視角。鑒于譯者的主體地位在當今文化語境下已得到越來越多的關(guān)注，本文擬運用闡釋學相關(guān)理論，重新審視和研究譯者的主體性作用。本文擬以翻譯闡釋學理論為基礎，以薩克雷的名作《名利場》的兩個權(quán)威中文譯本為語料，運用斯坦納的“翻譯的四步驟”，伽達默爾的“偏見”、“視域融合”等闡釋學基本觀點，通過實證分析，對薩克雷的《名利場》的兩個中文譯本進行對比研究，藉以考察譯者主體性在文學翻譯過程中的表現(xiàn)。 本文共分五章。第一章對薩克雷，其名著《名利場》及《名利場》的兩個權(quán)威版的中譯本做簡要的介紹。第二章對“譯者主體性”問題和“闡釋學”理論及相關(guān)的研究現(xiàn)狀進行較為詳細的介紹和說明，闡明什么是“譯者主體性”、“闡釋學”經(jīng)歷了怎樣的發(fā)展行程，以及它是如何與“譯者主體性”相結(jié)合的。第三章和第四章是本文的重點。這兩章以《名利場》的兩個不同中文譯本為案例，以從中所選取的大量文本實例為實證，運用闡釋學的核心理論對“譯者主體性”進行深入和充分的討論。其中，第三章以喬治斯坦納的“翻譯四步驟”理論為依據(jù)，對《名利場》的兩中譯本的譯者主體性的發(fā)揮進行對比分析與關(guān)照，即譯者在經(jīng)歷 “信賴”、“侵入”、“吸收”和“補償”這四個翻譯步驟的過程中所體現(xiàn)出的譯者主體性。第四章，根據(jù)伽達默爾的“視域融合”理論，從譯本本身的不同特征，如譯者的翻譯策略、語言風格、藝術(shù)標準及文化傳真度等，探討《名利場》兩中譯本的譯者主體性。第五章為結(jié)論，即：在闡釋學理論的視域下，翻譯過程應當理解為譯者能動的闡釋原文的過程，譯者主體性的發(fā)揮具有其合法性和一定的局限性。傳統(tǒng)譯論中有關(guān)譯者的理論很難指導譯者在翻譯實踐中充分調(diào)動自己的主體性，而結(jié)合闡釋學相關(guān)理論對譯者主體性及其實際作用進行研究，則能夠較好地解決這個問題。本文以闡釋學理論與傳統(tǒng)翻譯理論相結(jié)合作為立論基礎，旨在能從闡釋學角度出發(fā)，為《名利場》的兩個權(quán)威中文譯本的譯者主體性的解讀，提供一個較新的視角。筆者希望本文能具有一定的理論意義，并能為文學翻譯研究和翻譯實踐提供一點兒切實可行的參考。關(guān)鍵詞：《名利場》。 譯者主體性。 闡釋學。 翻譯四步驟。 視域融合 ABSTRACTWilliam Makepeace Thackeray, one of the greatest critical realist writers of England in the 19th century, reached his peak of popularity with the publication of his masterpiece Vanity Fair. It is “his most famous work in his literary career, which can certainly stand the test of time,” claimed Yang Jiang in 1997. Among the Chinese versions of Vanity Fair, the most widely acclaimed one is translated by Yang Bi, a wellknown female scholar in China, and her version, regarded as the most authoritative one, has enjoyed great popularity among the Chinese readers ever since its publication. Confronted with more challenging difficulties though, Professor Peng Changjiang from Hunan Normal University retranslated the novel a few decades later, making innovations in terms of linguistic performances, rhetorical properties, and so on.As the number of the Chinese versions of Vanity Fair grows, articles menting on different translations accordingly are ing forth endlessly. However, most of the ments and researches concerned are focused on the level of linguistic aspects, on “foreignization or domestication”，or on the basis of the cultural gap. It is still rare to see discussions and researches on parison between the different versions from the perspective of translator’s functions or translator’s subjectivity. As we all know, the development of the theory of translator’s subjectivity underwent various stages from being obscure to its being on the foreground of today. Since 1970s, translation theories in the western world began to take a “Cultural Turn”. There has been a tendency of applying poststructuralism to the interpretation of texts. As a result, the theory of translator’s subjectivity and its leading role in the process of translating has aroused great concern among the translation theorists. Scholars in China have also paid increasing attention to this theory. At present translator’s subjectivity as a translation theory has achieved its deserving stature.Hermeneutics as a philosophical and cultural ideology was prevalent in the West in the late 1960s. Since any translation begins with the understanding, Hermeneutics is exactly such a branch of learning that is established on the basis of understanding and hermeneutical exegesis and interpretation of the textual and contextual meanings of the texts in question. Hermeneutics, as viewed from the aspect of the translation theory, emphasizes that there is an inseparable relationship between translation and prehension. It illustrates the how and the why understanding and interpretation occurs from quite a different perspective. Thus the perception of the translating process begins to change from the writer’s own monologue and the targeted reader’s infinitive interpretation to an active dialogue between the original writer, the translator, the translation and the reader. In the light of the hermeneutical view, the translator bees the interlocutor playing the doublerole as both the reader of the source language text and the writer of the target language text. Hermeneutics, to some extent, has injected new vitality into the study of translation theories from a brand new perspective.In view of the situation in which more and more emphases are placed on translator’s subjectivity, this thesis aims at conducting a reinvestigation into the theory of translator’s subjectivity from the perspective of Hermeneutics. By way of applying some core concepts of Hermeneutics, such as George Steiner’s “Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation Motion Theory”, and Gadamer’s Hermeneutic theories, including his theories of “Fusion of Horizons”, “Prejudice”, “ForeUnderstanding”, and through the adoption of large quantities of factual instances taken from the two authoritative Chinese versions of William Makepeace Thackeray’s masterpiece Vanity Fair chosen for the intended parative study, the author of this thesis aims to carry out a tentative analysis on translator’s subjectivity in the act of translating literary works.The whole thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter One is a brief introduction to Vanity Fair，its original writer – William Makepeace Thackeray, as well as to the two translators and their translations. Chapter Two serves as the theoretical frame offering a detailed study of relevant theories of translator’s subjectivity and Hermeneutics. It involves the histories of the two theories and how Hermeneutics is applied to the study of translator’s subjectivity. Chapters Three and Four function as the core part of the thesis, aiming at carrying out ample and indepth analyses on a great wealth of examples taken from the two Chinese translation versions being discussed from hermeneutical perspective. Chapter Three deals with the parison between the two Chinese versions with a view to bringing forth translator’s subjectivity by applying George Steiner’s Fourfold Hermeneutic Translation