On Translation Equivalence.docx

1、On Translation EquivalenceOn Translation EquivalenceAbstract : Controversial as it is, the abstract concept of translation equivalence is of effective use in translation studies as it makes the analyses of translation more specific and more accessible. This essay attempts to present a few in-depth r

2、eflections on translation equivalence, in which three categories of equivalence are put forward according to the understanding on the part of this writer, viz. equivalence before translating, equivalence in translating and equivalence after translating. This narration, in the final analysis, identif

3、ies and verifies the theoretical importance and significance of the term “translation equivalence” in translation studies.Key words: equivalence; equivalent; translation; translatingIntroductionControversial as the term “equivalence” is, it is, as we may see, of much importance within the framework

4、of theoretical reflection on translation and has been making its appearances in such terms as “textual equivalence”, “formal equivalence”, “dynamic equivalence”, “functional equivalence”, “grammatical equivalence” and “pragmatic equivalence” put forward by the well-known theorists, such asCatford, E

5、ugene A. Nida, and Mona Baker, to name just a few, in their works on translation studies.It is not by accident that the term “equivalence” has been used so often by those who are concerned with theoretical studies of translation. It is the soul of translation, if we may say so. Although it seems to

6、be so intangible that we may even cast doubts on the necessity of its existence in the field of translation studies, it has so far identified itself as a concept giving much impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation. Like the translation principles, either the three-character principle of “

7、信达雅” (faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance) formulated by the Chinese scholar 严复 (Yan Fu) or the well-known three principles advanced by the English theoretician Alexander Tytler, which are the guidelines on the concrete process of translating as well as the criteria for judging the validity or

8、 adequacy of translation works, the term “translation equivalence” makes the analyses of translation more specific and more accessible. On this point, I find my understanding has been confirmed by Professor Qiu, who, in his MA dissertation in 1988, indicated that “all the concepts about equivalence

9、only further explained in modern linguistic terms the three famous principles of translation laid down by Alexander Tytler in 1790, , .That the translation should give a complete transcript of the idea of the original work. .That the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with t

10、hat of the original. .That the translation should have all the ease of original composition.”. (邱 2000: 330-331)As a concept that merits sober reflection, “equivalence” has aroused my interest and enhanced my understanding of what is translation as well. The following is to submit some of my thought

11、s on this subject.What Is Translation?Before dealing with translation equivalence, we have to address the issue of what is translation and what translation involves, which is still a matter of some controversy since translation can hardly be defined in a few words. At this conjuncture, what flashes

12、into my mind is the interesting analogy between translation and love, drawn by Peter Newmark who claims “translation is like love; I do not know what it is but I think I know what it is not”. This analogy sounds sensible and solid in that it provokes our thoughts about what is translation and what i

13、s love, or in essence, what is the soul or nature of translation and what is true love.In my view, translation, just like love, can be considered as an abstract concept, which has its concrete counterpart translating. Given this basic distinction between translation and translating, we may discover

14、the philosophical identity of translation after further reflection. From different philosophical perspectives, translation can be considered in various ways, which leads to the dispute over the issue of what is translation. Consequently, it is just a matter of choice to define translation as “a rend

15、ering from one language into another” or “a science”, “an art”, “a craft”, “a skill”, “an operation”, “a language activity”, “communicating”, or whatever. According to George Steiner, even “understanding” can be translation.One point commanding attention here, to my mind, is the driving force that u

16、nderlies translation, or in another word, the necessity and possibility of translation. Usually, we may say the factor responsible for the inception of some thing is the necessity for this particular thing and the factor decisive to the existence of some thing is the possibility of materializing thi

17、s thing. Now that translation has already been an important or sometimes even influential part of human civilization, it will be a promising job for us to get at the root of translation. If this writer is allowed to make a statement, the subsequent one is preferred. That is, the need for communicati

18、on and exchanges between geographically or/and chronologically different human communities has led to the activities of translation, the fact of which is, in itself, a declaration that translation is possible.Another point that crossed my mind is that accounts of translation had better be made in a

19、descriptive way rather than a prescriptive one since it is almost an impossible task to exhaust all the ways translation can be conducted. Besides, any particular case of translation can be too involved to follow the prescribed directions. As to how complex translation is, the concurrent dilemmas th

20、at keep haunting the translator during the process of translating are good examples in point. A recommendable illustration of the conflicting factors contributing to these dilemmas is “the dynamics of translation” demonstrated by Peter Newmark, which is an exposition of ten major parameters creating

21、 the tensions in translation, viz. “1 SL1 writer, 2 SL norms, 3 SL culture, 4 SL setting and tradition, 5 TL2 relationship, 6 TL norms, 7 TL culture, 8 TL setting and tradition, 9 The truth (the facts of the matter) and 10 Translator”. (Newmark 2001: 4-5)Thirdly, as for what translation involves, my

22、 understanding is that it concerns primarily the source text (or ST) and secondly the translator, the reader and the target text (or TT), to simplify the ten parameters exposed by Peter Newmark. And the original force that complicates translation is the pursuit of the truth of the souce text which i

23、s likely, or even inevitably, to be either distorted or partially missing during the process of translating as a result of the incompatibility of the two opposing parameters, viz. the source language and culture vs. the target language and culture. When it comes to whether an ideal target text is po

24、ssible, we are going to negotiate the concept of equivalence to be discussed in the following part of this essay.What Is Equivalence?Firstly, regarding equivalence, a lot of adjectives have been assigned to this concept to approach the nature of translation. Deprived of any adjective, “equivalence”

25、may be in a dictionary defined as “the state or property of being equivalent ” or “a logic operator having the property that if P is a statement, Q is a statement, R is a statement, then the equivalence of P,Q,R, is true if and only if all statements are true or all statements are false.” However, e

26、quivalence, when applied to the issue of translation, is an abstract concept and actually refers to the equivalence relationship between the source text and the target text, which brings about a basic philosophical question, viz. whether there are two absolutely equivalent things. The answer to this

27、 question may be unanimously negative. Thus the equivalence relationship between the ST and the TT seems to be an illusion; anyhow, equivalence can be regarded as the ideal goal when the conscientious and responsible translator is in persistent pursuit of the truth of the source text. In this sense,

28、 equivalence is just beyond the capability of the translator if it is not put in a more specific layer of translation or confined to a certain aspect of translation; to put this in another way, equivalence has to owe its significance to the adjective that precedes it. Similarly, observance, on the p

29、art of the translator, of all the three principles of translation advanced by Tytler or the three-character principle originated by Yan Fu, is out of the question; but observance of one or two of the above-mentioned three principles or characters is, in most cases, attainable. To be brief, the term

30、“equivalence” in the discipline of translation can hardly gain its identity until it is either preceded by a modifier such as an adjective or followed by a post-modifier, or, in other words, further divided into different categories.Secondly, different kinds of equivalences are realized by their cou

31、nterparts in the process of translating, namely, equivalents. As mentioned above, “equivalence” always goes with a modifier; accordingly, so does an “equivalent”. It is precisely the different kinds of equivalents that yield different versions of translation. In another word, an absolute equivalent

32、is as unobtainable as absolute equivalence and therefore an abstract concept or an ideal goal in the practical process of translating. This suggests that an ideal target text as an equivalent of the source text is past realization though different equivalents at different layers or aspects of transl

33、ation are to be materialized to constitute the final version of the target text. In one word, just like “equivalence”, an “equivalent”, failing any modifier preceding or following it, will be taken as an unpractical concept and then dismissed in the process of translating.Thirdly, a comprehensive and informative formula of translation equiv