中国菜名的翻译策略Word格式文档下载.docx

中国菜名的翻译策略Word格式文档下载.docx

《中国菜名的翻译策略Word格式文档下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《中国菜名的翻译策略Word格式文档下载.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

中国菜名本是汉语自身的问题，其文化含义也非常清楚，但是当我们将中国菜名译成英文，介绍给外国人时，就出现了语际问题。

相应地，中国菜名的文化含义也就变成了一个跨文化问题，因为翻译是一个跨文化和跨语言的问题，我们必须考虑到两种语言和两种文化的差异。

本篇论文从理论和实践两个角度分析了翻译策略，指出如何正确的翻译中国菜名，并详细讨论了一些特殊菜名。

归纳总结翻译中餐菜名的通用方法:

直译法,直译加注法，意译法，同时强调了文化在翻译和交流中的重要作用。

关键词：

奈达的翻译理论;

中国菜名的翻译;

翻译策略;

跨文化交际

1Introduction

Chinesedishesareknownfortheirvarietyandabundance.Thedishescanbeclassifiedintofourmajorcuisines,namely,NorthernCuisine,SichuanCuisine,JiangzheCuisineandSouthernCuisine.

Withmoreandmorecontactwiththeworld,Chinesefoodhasbecomeoneofculturessymbolizingourcountry.Asonepartofourcountry’sculture,ithasalonghistoryandrichcultureessences.Whenforeignerstasteourdeliciousfood,theyalsowanttoknowthenameessenceofthedish,therawmaterial,andthecookingways.Therefore,thetranslationofChinesedishnamesplaysaveryimportantroleinintroducingdishesandspreadingourdietculture.Awell-translateddishnamewillhelpattractcustomersandinspiretheirdesirefortaste;

whileadishnametranslatedimproperlysometimeswillbringnegativeeffectoreverleadtospoilageoftheimageofthedish.

Infollowingpaper,wewilldiscussspecificstrategiesforthetranslationofChinesedishnamesfromtheoreticalandpracticalperspectives.TherearemainlythreeapproachesintranslatingChinesedishnames:

literaltranslation,literaltranslationwithnotes,andliberaltranslation.

2TheTheoryAppliedtoTranslationofChineseDishNames

2.1EugeneNida

EugeneA.Nida,afamousAmericantranslatoroftheBible,iswellknownforhisworksinsemanticstructureandtranslationtheory.Nida’stheoryoftranslationdevelopedfromhisownpracticalworkinthe1940sonwardswhenhewastranslatingandorganizingthetranslationoftheBible.Histheorygenerallycontainstwoconcepts:

FormalEquivalenceandDynamicEquivalence.

2.2EugeneNida’stheoryoftranslation

2.2.1Formalequivalencetranslation

FormalEquivalenceisdefinedbyNidaasoneof“twodifferenttypesofequivalence”,which“focusesattentiononthemessageitself,inbothformandcontent”.Formalequivalenceisthusthe“qualityofatranslationinwhichthefeaturesoftheformofsourcetexthavebeenmechanicallyreproducedinthereceptorlanguage”（Nida&

Taber,1969\1982:

201）.TheaimofatranslatorwhoisstrivingforformalequivalenceistoallowSTtospeak“initsownterms”ratherthantoattempttoadjustittothecircumstancesofthetargetculture;

inpracticethismeans,forexample,using“FormalEquivalents”ratherthan“FunctionalEquivalents”whereverpossible,notjoiningorsplittingsentences,andpreservingformalindicatorssuchaspunctuationmarksandparagraphsbreaks（Nida,1964:

165）.Thefrequentresultofsuchstrategiesisofcoursethat,becauseofdifferencesinstructurebetweenSLandTL,atranslationofthistype“distortsthegrammaticalandstylisticpatternsofthereceptorlanguage,andhencedistortsthemessage”（Nida&

201）.Forthisreason,itisfrequentlynecessarytoincludeexplanatorynotestohelpthetargetreader（Nida,1964:

166）.Soageneraltendencytowardsformalthandynamicequivalenceischaracterizedby,forexample,aconcernforaccuracyandapreferenceforretainingtheoriginalwordingwhereverpossible.Inspiteofitsapparentlimitations,however,formalequivalenceissometimesthemostappropriatestrategytofollow:

besidesfrequentlybeingchosenfortranslatingbiblicalandothersacredtexts,itisalsousefulforBack-TranslationandforwhenthetranslatormayforsomereasonbeunwillingtoacceptresponsibilityforchangingthewordingofTT（Hatim&

Hason,1990:

7）.

2.2.2DynamicEquivalenceTranslation

DynamicEquivalenceisbasedonwhatNidacalled“theprincipleofequivalenteffect”where“therelationshipbetweenreceptorandmessageshouldbesubstantiallythesameasthatwhichexistedbetweentheoriginalreceptorsandthemessage”（1964:

159）.Themessagehastobemodifiedtothereceptor’slinguisticneedsandculturalexpectationand“aimsatcompletenaturalnessofexpression”.Hedefinesthegoalofdynamicequivalenceasseeking“theclosestnaturalequivalenttotheSLmessage”（1969:

12）.

Inotherwords,adynamicallyequivalenttranslationisonewhichhasbeenproducedinaccordancewiththethreefoldprocessofAnalysis,Transfer2,andRestructuring（Nida&

200）;

formulatingsuchatranslationsillentailsuchproceduresassubstitutingTLitemswhicharemoreculturallyappropriateforobscureSTitems,makinglinguisticallyimplicitSTinformationexplicit,andbuildinginacertainamountofRedundancytoaidcompression.Inatranslationofthiskindoneisthereforenotsoconcernedwith“matchingthereceptorlanguagemessagewiththesourcelanguagemessage”;

theaimismoreto“relatethereceptortomodesofbehaviorrelevantwithinthecontextofhisownculture”（Nida,1964:

159）.Nida&

Taberarguethata“highdegree”ofequivalenceofresponseisneededforthetranslationtoachieveitspurpose,althoughtheypointoutthatthisresponsecanneverbeenidenticalwithelicitedbytheoriginal（Nida&

Taber,1969\1982:

24）.

2.3CommentsontheTheory

Nidaplayedanimportantroleinpointingtheroadawayfromstrictword-for-wordequivalence.Hisintroductiontotheconceptsofformalanddynamicequivalenceiscrucialinintroducingareceptor-based（orreader-based）orientationtotranslationtheory.However,boththeprincipleofequivalenteffectandtheconceptofequivalencehavecometobeheavilycriticizedforanumberofreasons.Lefevere（1993:

78）considerequivalentorresponsetobeimpossible.OneofNida’sfiercestcriticsisEdwinGentzler,whodenigratesNida’sworkforitstheologicalandproselytizingstandpointwiththeconceptthatdynamicequivalenceservesthepurposeofconvertingthereceptors,nomatterwhattheirculture,tothedominantdiscourseandideasofProtestantChristianity.However,Nidahas“achievedwhatfewofhispredecessorsattempted”andhisinfluenceintranslationstudiesspansfivedecadesandhasleftanindeliblemarkinthefieldoftranslation（Munday,2001:

43）.

3Cross-culturalCommunication

3.1RelationshipbetweenCultureandtranslation

Whenlearningalanguage,asayingis“learningalanguageisakindoflearningthecultureandhabitofthecountrywherethelanguageisspoken”.Intranslation,wemaysaythattranslatingasourcelanguagetextisakindoftranslatingthesourcelanguagecultureandhabitofthecountrywherethesourcelanguageisspoken. 

3.1.1TheDefinitionofCulture

Whatdoestheword”culture”mean?

Itmaymeanmanythings.Forexample,wesometimessaythatpeoplewhoareabletoreadandwriteorwhoknowaboutart,musicandliteraturearecultured.Fordifferentpeople,thewordhasadifferentmeaning.

Infact,cultureisreallyalargeandevasiveconcept,verycomplexanddifficulttodefine.Itissaidthattherehavebeenatleastover150definitionsofculture,butnoneofthemseemstobeabletotelluseverythingaboutculture.Thefollowingdefinitionsarejustsomeofthewell-knownones.

“Culturemaybedefinedaswhatasocietydoesandthinks”（Sapir,1921）.

“Whatreallybindsmentogetheristheirculture—theideasandthestandardstheyhaveincommon”（R.Benedict,1935）.

“Cultureisman’smedium;

thereisnotoneaspectofhumanlifethatisnottouchedandalteredbyculture.Thismeanspersonality,howpeopleexpressthemselves,includingshowsofemotion,thewaytheythink,howtheymove,howproblemsaresolved,howtheircitiesareplannedandlaidout,howtransportationsystemsfunctionandareorganized,aswellashoweconomicandgovernmentsystemsareputtogetherandfunction”.（EdwardT.Hall,1959）

3.1.2TheDefinitionofTranslation

Translationisalsoanincrediblybroadnotionwhichcanbeunderstoodinmanydifferentways.

AsJakobsondefinestranslationas“aninterpretationofverbalsignsbymeansofsomeotherlanguage”（1959\1966:

233）.AnapproachbasedontheimportanceofpreservingtheeffectoftheoriginalisreflectedinNida&

taber’sdefinition:

“translationconsistsinreproducinginthereceptorlanguagetheclosestnationalequivalentofthesource-languagemessage,firstintermsofmeaningandsecondlyintermsofstyle”（Nida&

taber,1982:

12）.Vermeer,rejectingnotionsoftranslationasatwo-stageprocessofdecodingandrecording,offersasimilarlynon-normativedefinitionoftranslationas“informationaboutasourcetextinanotherlanguage”（1982:

97）.ThisapproachengendersaviewoftranslationinwhichthewayaTTfunctionsinaspecificculturalcontextisparamount:

“translationistheproductionofafunctionaltargettextthatisspecifiedaccordingtotheintendedordemandedfunctionofthetargettext（translationskopos）”（Nord,1991:

28）.

3.1.3RelationshipbetweenCultureandTranslation

Herewewillintroduceanotherterm“cross-culturaltranslation”.Thistermreferstotypesoftranslationwhichfunctionasatoolforcross-culturaloranthropologicalresearch,orindeedtoanytranslationwhichissensitivetoculturalaswellaslinguisticfactors.

Mosttranslatorsrecognizethateachlanguagecontainselementswhicharederivedfromitsculture,thateverytextisanchoredinaspecificculture,andthatconventionsoftextproductionandreceptionvaryfromculturetoculture（Koller,1979\1992:

59-60）.Anawarenessofsuchissuescanattimesmakeitmoreappropri