《金剛般若波羅蜜經》被動句研究－以梵漢對勘為進路

NHUIR > College of Humanities > Graduate Institute of Religious Studies > Disserations and Theses > Item 987654321/16993

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nhuir.nhu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/16993

Title:	《金剛般若波羅蜜經》被動句研究－以梵漢對勘為進路
Other Titles:	Passive Sentences in Diamond Sūtra--Research on the Comparison of Sanskrit and Chinese Versions
Authors:	吳清海 Wu, Chin-Hai
Contributors:	宗教學研究所黃國清 Kuo-Chin Huang
Keywords:	漢譯佛典;梵漢對勘;被動句;《金剛般若波羅蜜經》;歸化;異化 Chinese version of Buddhist Scriptures;the comparison of Sanskrit and Chinese versions;passive sentence;Diamond Sūtra;adaptation;alienation
Date:	2014
Issue Date:	2014-11-20 17:30:31 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本論文是關於《金剛經》的被動句研究，以鳩摩羅什《金剛般若波羅蜜經》，玄奘《能斷金剛般若波羅蜜經》二部同經異譯佛典為研究對象，將此二譯本與梵文原典逐字逐句進行對勘，通過譯經的語言與梵文原典語言的分析、比對，詳盡考察文中所有出現的被動句，並在此基礎上對每一個被動句式的特點進行詳細的描述，以期瞭解梵文和中土文獻使用被動式方面存在的差異，並探討產生差異的原因。　　進行《金剛經》梵漢對勘後，得到下列幾項論點：(一) 歸納二本漢譯《金剛經》標誌被動句，有三類被動標誌形式：1、「為」字被動標誌，此類句型最少。2、「所」字被動標誌：此形式被動標誌出現比率最高。3、「可」字被動標誌：「可」字在古漢語表被動標誌情形不多見，在漢譯佛經中，因語言接觸關係而增多，且因「應」字的滲透，使「可」也產生了「應……被」的新意。(二) 本文初步挖掘《金剛經》譯文中某些梵譯漢的語法對應標記，也揭示了如下特殊的語法現象。1、《金剛經》對譯「為」字，大多是梵文語法的與格(dative )而非被動標誌。2、《金剛經》譯文中，大部分以「應」對譯梵文未來被動分詞語法標記，「應」字在漢語本無被動意，漢譯佛經中，因語言接觸關係，而增衍出新的意義。3、《金剛經》譯文中「所V」式被動句，使用數量最多，且語用義已多非貶義。(三) 漢語被動句分標誌被動句和無標誌被動句，對勘中發現梵文被動式譯成譯語「無標誌被動句」的次數鳩摩羅什多於玄奘，而譯成「標誌被動句」反之。這點似可以解釋羅什的譯法較傾向「歸化」，歸化譯法往往比異化譯法更具流傳性，羅什本的流傳性應與此有關。　　The purpose of this paper is to study the passive sentences of theSanskrit Diamond Sūtra by comparing two Chinese versions of Buddhist Scriptures, one by Kumarajiva and the other by Xuan Zang.　　As the research subjects in this paper, all the passive sentences in theSanskrit Diamond Sūtra are listed and were analyzed and compared, word by word, with both Chinese versions of Buddhist Scriptures in order to discover and understand the variances in translations and further discuss the reasons for the variances.　　After comparing and analyzing the two Chinese versions of Buddhist Scriptures, some of the findings can be generalized as below:I. Three different forms of “marked” passive sentences can be found throughout both Scriptures:A. “Wei,” as marked passive: This is the least frequent type of passive sentence found in either translation.B. ”Sou,” as marked passive: This type of passive sentence appearsmost frequently.C. “Ke,” as marked passive: In the Han language, this type of sentence does not have any “passive” meaning originally; however,in the Chinese versions of Buddhist Scriptures, it has acquired a new passive meaning.II. After studying and comparing both the Chinese versions of Buddhist Scriptures in their entirety, some unique linguistic characteristics were identified in the Sanskrit-to-Han-language translations, including:A. “Wei” is generally translated as passive in both Chinese versions of Buddhist Scriptures, even though it usually functions as “dative” in its original verses.B. “Yin” is generally translated as marked passive, although in theHan language, it does not have a passive meaning. The new passive meaning was acquired in the Chinese translations.C. “Sou + V” passive sentences are used most frequently and the meanings are not limited to negative expressions. III. In the Han language, there are two types of passive sentences,“marked” and “unmarked.” By comparison, it has been found that there are more unmarked passive sentences in Kumarajiva’s than inXuan Zang’s, while there are more marked passive sentences inXuan Zang’s than in Kumarajiva’s. This can be interpreted as indicating that Kumarajiva’s version is more of a version of“adaptation” than that of “alienation.” The wider acceptance and dispersal of Kumarajiva’s “adaptation” version over Xuan Zang’s“alienation” version seems to prove this point.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Religious Studies] Disserations and Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
102NHU00183007-001.pdf		4572Kb	Adobe PDF	2864	View/Open
index.html		0Kb	HTML	252	View/Open

Loading...