On Translation Equivalence.docx

On Translation Equivalence.docx

《On Translation Equivalence.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《On Translation Equivalence.docx（8页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

OnTranslationEquivalence

OnTranslationEquivalence

　　Abstract:

Controversialasitis,theabstractconceptoftranslationequivalenceisofeffectiveuseintranslationstudiesasitmakestheanalysesoftranslationmorespecificandmoreaccessible.Thisessayattemptstopresentafewin-depthreflectionsontranslationequivalence,inwhichthreecategoriesofequivalenceareputforwardaccordingtotheunderstandingonthepartofthiswriter,viz.equivalencebeforetranslating,equivalenceintranslatingandequivalenceaftertranslating.Thisnarration,inthefinalanalysis,identifiesandverifiesthetheoreticalimportanceandsignificanceoftheterm“translationequivalence”intranslationstudies.

Keywords:

equivalence;equivalent;translation;translating

ⅠIntroduction

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

Itisnotbyaccidentthattheterm“equivalence”hasbeenusedsooftenbythosewhoareconcernedwiththeoreticalstudiesoftranslation.Itisthesouloftranslation,ifwemaysayso.Althoughitseemstobesointangiblethatwemayevencastdoubtsonthenecessityofitsexistenceinthefieldoftranslationstudies,ithassofaridentifieditselfasaconceptgivingmuchimpetustothetheoreticalanalysisoftranslation.Likethetranslationprinciples,eitherthethree-characterprincipleof“信达雅”（faithfulness,expressivenessandelegance）formulatedbytheChinesescholar严复（YanFu）orthewell-knownthreeprinciplesadvancedbytheEnglishtheoreticianAlexanderTytler,whicharetheguidelinesontheconcreteprocessoftranslatingaswellasthecriteriaforjudgingthevalidityoradequacyoftranslationworks,theterm“translationequivalence”makestheanalysesoftranslationmorespecificandmoreaccessible.Onthispoint,IfindmyunderstandinghasbeenconfirmedbyProfessorQiu,who,inhisMAdissertationin1988,indicatedthat“……allthe…conceptsaboutequivalenceonlyfurtherexplainedinmodernlinguistictermsthethreefamousprinciplesoftranslationlaiddownbyAlexanderTytlerin1790,,‘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,acomprehensiveandinformativeformulaoftranslationequiv