首頁 > 文章中心 > 正文

      On Translation Equivalence英語

      前言:本站為你精心整理了On Translation Equivalence英語范文,希望能為你的創作提供參考價值,我們的客服老師可以幫助你提供個性化的參考范文,歡迎咨詢。

      On&nbspTranslation&nbspEquivalence英語

      Controversialastheterm“equivalence”is,itis,aswemaysee,ofmuchimportancewithintheframeworkoftheoreticalreflectionontranslationandhasbeenmakingitsappearancesinsuchtermsas“textualequivalence”,“formalequivalence”,“dynamicequivalence”,“functionalequivalence”,“grammaticalequivalence”and“pragmaticequivalence”putforwardbythewell-knowntheorists,suchasJ.C.Catford,EugeneA.Nida,andMonaBaker,tonamejustafew,intheirworksontranslationstudies.

      Itisnotbyaccidentthattheterm“equivalence”hasbeenusedsooftenbythosewhoareconcernedwiththeoreticalstudiesoftranslation.Itisthesouloftranslation,ifwemaysayso.Althoughitseemstobesointangiblethatwemayevencastdoubtsonthenecessityofitsexistenceinthefieldoftranslationstudies,ithassofaridentifieditselfasaconceptgivingmuchimpetustothetheoreticalanalysisoftranslation.Likethetranslationprinciples,eitherthethree-characterprincipleof“信達雅”(faithfulness,expressivenessandelegance)formulatedbytheChinesescholar嚴復(YanFu)orthewell-knownthreeprinciplesadvancedbytheEnglishtheoreticianAlexanderTytler,whicharetheguidelinesontheconcreteprocessoftranslatingaswellasthecriteriaforjudgingthevalidityoradequacyoftranslationworks,theterm“translationequivalence”makestheanalysesoftranslationmorespecificandmoreaccessible.Onthispoint,IfindmyunderstandinghasbeenconfirmedbyProfessorQiu,who,inhisMAdissertationin1988,indicatedthat“……allthe…conceptsaboutequivalenceonlyfurtherexplainedinmodernlinguistictermsthethreefamousprinciplesoftranslationlaiddownbyAlexanderTytlerin1790,i.e.,‘Ⅰ.Thatthetranslationshouldgiveacompletetranscriptoftheideaoftheoriginalwork.Ⅱ.Thatthestyleandmannerofwritingshouldbeofthesamecharacterwiththatoftheoriginal.Ⅲ.Thatthetranslationshouldhavealltheeaseoforiginalcomposition.’”.(邱2000:330-331)

      Asaconceptthatmeritssoberreflection,“equivalence”hasarousedmyinterestandenhancedmyunderstandingofwhatistranslationaswell.Thefollowingistosubmitsomeofmythoughtsonthissubject.

      ⅡWhatIsTranslation?

      Beforedealingwithtranslationequivalence,wehavetoaddresstheissueofwhatistranslationandwhattranslationinvolves,whichisstillamatterofsomecontroversysincetranslationcanhardlybedefinedinafewwords.Atthisconjuncture,whatflashesintomymindistheinterestinganalogybetweentranslationandlove,drawnbyPeterNewmarkwhoclaims“…translationislikelove;IdonotknowwhatitisbutIthinkIknowwhatitisnot…”.Thisanalogysoundssensibleandsolidinthatitprovokesourthoughtsaboutwhatistranslationandwhatislove,orinessence,whatisthesoulornatureoftranslationandwhatistruelove.

      Inmyview,translation,justlikelove,canbeconsideredasanabstractconcept,whichhasitsconcretecounterpart——translating.Giventhisbasicdistinctionbetweentranslationandtranslating,wemaydiscoverthephilosophicalidentityoftranslationafterfurtherreflection.Fromdifferentphilosophicalperspectives,translationcanbeconsideredinvariousways,whichleadstothedisputeovertheissueofwhatistranslation.Consequently,itisjustamatterofchoicetodefinetranslationas“arenderingfromonelanguageintoanother”or“ascience”,“anart”,“acraft”,“askill”,“anoperation”,“alanguageactivity”,“communicating”,orwhatever.AccordingtoGeorgeSteiner,even“understanding”canbetranslation.

      Onepointcommandingattentionhere,tomymind,isthedrivingforcethatunderliestranslation,orinanotherword,thenecessityandpossibilityoftranslation.Usually,wemaysaythefactorresponsiblefortheinceptionofsomethingisthenecessityforthisparticularthingandthefactordecisivetotheexistenceofsomethingisthepossibilityofmaterializingthisthing.Nowthattranslationhasalreadybeenanimportantorsometimeseveninfluentialpartofhumancivilization,itwillbeapromisingjobforustogetattherootoftranslation.Ifthiswriterisallowedtomakeastatement,thesubsequentoneispreferred.Thatis,theneedforcommunicationandexchangesbetweengeographicallyor/andchronologicallydifferenthumancommunitieshasledtotheactivitiesoftranslation,thefactofwhichis,initself,adeclarationthattranslationispossible.

      Anotherpointthatcrossedmymindisthataccountsoftranslationhadbetterbemadeinadescriptivewayratherthanaprescriptiveonesinceitisalmostanimpossibletasktoexhaustallthewaystranslationcanbeconducted.Besides,anyparticularcaseoftranslationcanbetooinvolvedtofollowtheprescribeddirections.Astohowcomplextranslationis,theconcurrentdilemmasthatkeephauntingthetranslatorduringtheprocessoftranslatingaregoodexamplesinpoint.Arecommendableillustrationoftheconflictingfactorscontributingtothesedilemmasis“thedynamicsoftranslation”demonstratedbyPeterNewmark,whichisanexpositionoftenmajorparameterscreatingthetensionsintranslation,viz.“1SL1writer,2SLnorms,3SLculture,4SLsettingandtradition,5TL2relationship,6TLnorms,7TLculture,8TLsettingandtradition,9Thetruth(thefactsofthematter)and10Translator”.(Newmark2001:4-5)

      Thirdly,asforwhattranslationinvolves,myunderstandingisthatitconcernsprimarilythesourcetext(orST)andsecondlythetranslator,thereaderandthetargettext(orTT),tosimplifythetenparametersexposedbyPeterNewmark.Andtheoriginalforcethatcomplicatestranslationisthepursuitofthetruthofthesoucetextwhichislikely,oreveninevitably,tobeeitherdistortedorpartiallymissingduringtheprocessoftranslatingasaresultoftheincompatibilityofthetwoopposingparameters,viz.thesourcelanguageandculturevs.thetargetlanguageandculture.Whenitcomestowhetheranidealtargettextispossible,wearegoingtonegotiatetheconceptofequivalencetobediscussedinthefollowingpartofthisessay.

      ⅢWhatIsEquivalence?

      Firstly,regardingequivalence,alotofadjectiveshavebeenassignedtothisconcepttoapproachthenatureoftranslation.Deprivedofanyadjective,“equivalence”maybeinadictionarydefinedas“thestateorpropertyofbeingequivalent”or“alogicoperatorhavingthepropertythatifPisastatement,Qisastatement,Risastatement,thentheequivalenceofP,Q,R,…,istrueifandonlyifallstatementsaretrueorallstatementsarefalse.”However,equivalence,whenappliedtotheissueoftranslation,isanabstractconceptandactuallyreferstotheequivalencerelationshipbetweenthesourcetextandthetargettext,whichbringsaboutabasicphilosophicalquestion,viz.whethertherearetwoabsolutelyequivalentthings.Theanswertothisquestionmaybeunanimouslynegative.ThustheequivalencerelationshipbetweentheSTandtheTTseemstobeanillusion;anyhow,equivalencecanberegardedastheidealgoalwhentheconscientiousandresponsibletranslatorisinpersistentpursuitofthetruthofthesourcetext.Inthissense,equivalenceisjustbeyondthecapabilityofthetranslatorifitisnotputinamorespecificlayeroftranslationorconfinedtoacertainaspectoftranslation;toputthisinanotherway,equivalencehastooweitssignificancetotheadjectivethatprecedesit.Similarly,observance,onthepartofthetranslator,ofallthethreeprinciplesoftranslationadvancedbyTytlerorthethree-characterprincipleoriginatedbyYanFu,isoutofthequestion;butobservanceofoneortwooftheabove-mentionedthreeprinciplesorcharactersis,inmostcases,attainable.Tobebrief,theterm“equivalence”inthedisciplineoftranslationcanhardlygainitsidentityuntilitiseitherprecededbyamodifiersuchasanadjectiveorfollowedbyapost-modifier,or,inotherwords,furtherdividedintodifferentcategories.

      Secondly,differentkindsofequivalencesarerealizedbytheircounterpartsintheprocessoftranslating,namely,equivalents.Asmentionedabove,“equivalence”alwaysgoeswithamodifier;accordingly,sodoesan“equivalent”.Itispreciselythedifferentkindsofequivalentsthatyielddifferentversionsoftranslation.Inanotherword,anabsoluteequivalentisasunobtainableasabsoluteequivalenceandthereforeanabstractconceptoranidealgoalinthepracticalprocessoftranslating.Thissuggeststhatanidealtargettextasanequivalentofthesourcetextispastrealizationthoughdifferentequivalentsatdifferentlayersoraspectsoftranslationaretobematerializedtoconstitutethefinalversionofthetargettext.Inoneword,justlike“equivalence”,an“equivalent”,failinganymodifierprecedingorfollowingit,willbetakenasanunpracticalconceptandthendismissedintheprocessoftranslating.

      Thirdly,acomprehensiveandinformativeformulaoftranslationequivalencehasbeenoriginatedbyProfessorQiuMaoru,whichissodetailedandexhaustiveinexpositionthatitcoversnearlyallthekindsofequivalencesintranslation.(Thefullcontentsareavailablefrom邱2000:339-378)

      Toconclude,both“equivalence”and“equivalent”,whenbearingnopre-modifiersorpost-modifiers,areabstractconcepts.Andsubsequentlyfollowafewofmyreflectionsontranslationequivalence.

      ⅣAFewReflectionsonTranslationEquivalence

      Asmentionedpreviouslyinthisshortessay,“equivalence”and“equivalent”are,inmymind,twointerrelatedabstractconceptsintranslation.Besides,“translation”underdiscussionhereisalsoanabstractconcept,incontrasttotheconcreteactof“translating”.Onfurtherreflection,thiswriterfounditseemspossibletounderstandandanalysetheconceptofequivalenceinsomenewway,whichthiswriterventuresherebytomakeatentativeaccounthere.

      Tostartwith,translating,correspondingwithtranslation,involvesfourmajorparameters(amongmanyothers),viz.thesourcetext,thetranslator,thereaderandthetargettexttobeproduced(whichwehadbetterdistinguishfromthetargettextthatisalreadyproducedwhenwetalkabouttranslationinsteadoftranslating),eachusuallyresolvingintomany,eveninexhaustible,factorsorvariablesthatmayexercisedifferenteffectsontheactoftranslating.Tobespecific,thesourcetext,forexample,demandsadequateconsiderationofitsstyle,language(i.e.theSL),timeofbeingwritten,theSLcultureandsoon,whilethetargettexttobeproduceddrawsthetranslator’sattentiontoitslanguage(i.e.theTL),theTLcultureandthelike;thetranslatorhashisorherparticularpurposeandpsychology,auniqueandhabitualstyleofwritingandothercharacteristicsthatvaryfrompersontoperson,whilethereadermaybeclassifiedintoseveraltypesaccordingtodifferentscalessuchasthereader’seducationlevel,sexandage.

      Secondly,thediscussionheremainlyfocusesonthesourcelanguageandculturevs.thetargetlanguageandculture.Asregardstherelationshipbetweenlanguageandculture,itmaybeconciselysummarizedinthreestatements,viz.“…languageexpressesculturalreality.”,“…languageembodiesculturalreality.”,and“…languagesymbolizesculturalreality.”(Kramsch2000:3)Itfollowsthat,translating,therenderingfromonelanguageintoanother,isconfrontedwiththeproblem,orrather,theaimorgoal,ofrestoringthesourceculturalrealityembodiedinthesourcelanguageinthetargetlanguagethatusually,ifnotalways,symbolizestheculturalrealityspecifictothetargetlanguage.Inotherwords,thetargetlanguageisentrustedtoexpresstheculturalrealityspecifictothesourcelanguage,whichspeaksofwhytheprocessoftranslatingissonotoriousforitscomplexityandtortuousnessinthefirstplace.Hereonequestionrecommendsitself——Whether,ortowhatdegree,thetargetlanguageisreliableorqualifiedtobeentrustedthistaskofsymbolizingtheculturalrealitythatisforeigntoitselfindifferentdegrees(i.e.doingsomethingthatitusuallydoesnotdo,orplayingabrand-newrole),whichisanotherwayofarticulatingthedisputableissueoftranslatabilityortheequallyarguableconceptofequivalence,thesubject-matterofourconcernhere.

      Thirdly,concerningthequestionmentionedabove,anothertopicsubjecttofiercecontroversyarises,viz.thetheoryoflinguisticrelativity,whichimmediatelyremindsusofthefamousSapir-Whorfhypothesis.Asweknow,thestrongversionofthishypothesisthatlanguagedeterminesthought(andwhichcouldeasilygiverisetoprejudiceandracism)cannotbetakenseriouslywhiletheweakversionhasbeengenerallyaccepted.Inotherwords,wemaysaylanguageandthoughtareinterdependent.Anothernote-worthypointhereistheassumptionthatanylanguagepossessesthenecessaryresourcesforthespeakertoexpressanythingthatheorshewantstosayinthatlanguage.Then,ontheunderstandingthathumanthoughtscanbeexchanged,wemaydrawaconclusionthatanythoughtinthesourcelanguagecouldbefinallyexpressedinthetargetlanguage.Itfollowsnaturallythat,whenthethoughtvoicedinthesourcelanguagegetsacrosstothereader(who,ofcourse,makesitbymeansofthetargetlanguage),wemaysayequivalenceinitsabstractsenseisachieved.Hencethenextpartofmywayofunderstandingequivalence.

      Fourthly,equivalence,inmymind,isanabstractconcepthereandmightfallintothreecategoriesthatareinaccordancewiththedynamicdevelopmentofculturalexchanges.Atentativeanddescriptiveexpositiongoesasfollows:

      ⅰEquivalencebeforeTranslating

      Thefirstcategoryisequivalencebeforetranslating,whichmeansthekindofequivalencepossibletobeattainedwhenthetargettextisnotproducedyet.ItmaybeconsideredastheaimorgoalofthetranslatorwholeavesnostoneunturnedinhispursuitofasuccessfultransmissionofthetruthofthesourcetextfromtheSLtotheTL.Ifthewholeprocessoftranslatingcouldbecomparedtoatelephonecallwiththetranslatorbeingtheoperator,thiskindofequivalencemightbesaidtobestillatoneendofatelephonelinewherethetruthoftheSTlies.

      ⅱEquivalenceinTranslating

      Thesecondcategoryoccurswhenthetargettextisjustproduced.Atthisstage,thetruthoftheSThasreachedthetranslatorwhohasputitinthetargetlanguage.However,thetruth,whetherithasbeenfullyencodedinthetargetlanguageornot,maystillbenotfullyunderstoodby,orevenunavailableto,thereader.Intermsoftheanalogyofatelephonecall,themessagehasnotreachedtheotherendofthelinethoughtheoperatorhasperformedtheroleofputtingitthrough.Inthiscase,wemightsayequivalencestayswiththetranslator,butnotnecessarilywiththereader.

      ⅲEquivalenceafterTranslating

      Thethirdcategoryofequivalenceentailstimesincetranslationis,inessence,anactivityofculturalexchangethatcannotbeeffectuatedimmediatelyinmanycasesduetotheculturaldifferencesandotherfactors.Anyhow,asmoreandmoreculturalexchangestakeplaceanddevelopfurther,themessagethatwasonceheldupfinallyfindsitswaytothereaderwhenequivalence,wemaysay,isachievedatlast.Inotherwords,equivalenceofthiscategorymightbemoreattributabletotheculturalexchangeactivitiesoutsidethescopeoftranslationthantotheveryactoftranslating.

      Takeasimpleexampleofthetranslatingofsuchaculture-specificChineseword“旗袍”intotheEnglishlanguage.SupposethistranslatingtookplacedecadesagoandtheEnglish-speakingreaderhadnoideaaboutwhat“旗袍”was.Thetranslatorwouldputitinto“qipao”asanEnglishequivalentbymeansofZeroTranslation(transliterationinthiscase)owingtothedifferenceofthematerialculturebetweentheChineseandEnglish-speakingpeople.Heretheequivalencebetween“旗袍”and“qipao”comesunderthesecondcategorymentionedabovesincethereadermightstillhaveaveryvagueideaofwhat“旗袍”wasevenafterreadingapossiblefootnote.However,nowadays,wemayrestassuredthattheEnglish-speakingpeopleknowwellaboutwhat“qipao”isastheyhavebeenveryfamiliarwiththiskindofChinesedressthankstothefrequentandin-depthculturalexchangesorotherfactorssuchastheadvancementofhumanscienceandtechnology.Soitsometimestakestimeandotheractivitiesoutsidethescopeoftranslation,inadditiontotheactoftranslating,todrivehometothereaderthetruthoftheSTsuchas“旗袍”.(Bytheway,thetranslationworksproperhelptopromoteculturalexchanges.)Untilatthisstagecouldwesayequivalence,i.e.thethirdcategoryunderdiscussion,isfullyachieved.

      ⅤConclusion

      Reflectiononequivalenceintranslationhelpstodeepenourunderstandingofthenatureoftranslation.Equivalence,constructedattheabstractlevel,isthusarathernecessaryandimportantterminthefieldoftranslationstudies.Theoretically,equivalenceisattainable;andequivalenceusuallytakestheformofdifferentsub-categoriesthatarerealizedatdifferentlayersoraspectsoftranslation,whichiswhythistermusuallygoestogetherwithamodifier.Certainly,nothingbuttheabundantpracticeoftranslatingandthestudyoftheconcreteproblemsoccurringintranslationwouldsufficeforatheoryrelatingtoequivalence.Allinall,equivalenceisatleastafunctionalandeffectivetermforustodescribeandanalyzetranslationortotoleratethefiercecontroversyinthisfieldandfindawayoutoftheawkwarddilemmasinthepracticaltranslatingthatwouldotherwisekeepunresolved.Toputitanotherway,thetheoryonequivalenceactuallydid,doorwilldoofferusatheoreticalbasistoverifythevarietyoftranslationmethodsadopted.

      文檔上傳者
      7777久久亚洲中文字幕蜜桃| 亚洲大尺度无码专区尤物| 国产AV无码专区亚洲AV男同| 亚洲av再在线观看 | 亚洲s码欧洲m码吹潮| 亚洲人精品亚洲人成在线| 亚洲国产av一区二区三区丶| 亚洲白色白色在线播放| 亚洲精品国产福利片| 亚洲国产精品综合福利专区| 亚洲国产成人九九综合| 亚洲一线产区二线产区精华| 亚洲另类自拍丝袜第1页| 亚洲日本香蕉视频观看视频| 亚洲国产成+人+综合| 亚洲1234区乱码| 亚洲色欲色欱wwW在线| 亚洲人成色在线观看| 丰满亚洲大尺度无码无码专线| 亚洲aⅴ天堂av天堂无码麻豆| 国产精品观看在线亚洲人成网| 亚洲AV无码一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲精品无码AV中文字幕电影网站| 亚洲综合最新无码专区| 亚洲日产韩国一二三四区| 亚洲AV无码久久精品狠狠爱浪潮| 久久青青草原亚洲av无码app| 亚洲精品视频在线观看免费| 亚洲最大的黄色网| 亚洲精品无码专区在线播放| 国产精品亚洲精品爽爽| 久久亚洲精品无码播放| 亚洲AV中文无码字幕色三| 337p日本欧洲亚洲大胆精品555588| 亚洲国产成人无码av在线播放| 亚洲色无码专区一区| 亚洲成A∨人片天堂网无码| 亚洲综合av永久无码精品一区二区| 亚洲va久久久噜噜噜久久| 亚洲精品日韩中文字幕久久久| 亚洲人成网男女大片在线播放|