Equivalence in Translation Between Myth and Reality.docx
- 文档编号:10050102
- 上传时间:2023-02-08
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:15
- 大小:24.93KB
Equivalence in Translation Between Myth and Reality.docx
《Equivalence in Translation Between Myth and Reality.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Equivalence in Translation Between Myth and Reality.docx(15页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
EquivalenceinTranslationBetweenMythandReality
EquivalenceinTranslation:
BetweenMythandReality
byVanessaLeonardi
Thecomparisonoftextsindifferentlanguagesinevitablyinvolvesatheoryofequivalence.Equivalencecanbesaidtobethecentralissueintranslationalthoughitsdefinition,relevance,andapplicabilitywithinthefieldoftranslationtheoryhavecausedheatedcontroversy,andmanydifferenttheoriesoftheconceptofequivalencehavebeenelaboratedwithinthisfieldinthepastfiftyyears.
wheneverthereisdeficiency,terminologymaybequalifiedandamplifiedbyloanwordsorloantranslations,neologismsorsemanticshifts,andfinally,bycircumlocutions
Theaimofthispaperistoreviewthetheoryofequivalenceasinterpretedbysomeofthemostinnovativetheoristsinthisfield—VinayandDarbelnet,Jakobson,NidaandTaber,Catford,House,andfinallyBaker.Thesetheoristshavestudiedequivalenceinrelationtothetranslationprocess,usingdifferentapproaches,andhaveprovidedfruitfulideasforfurtherstudyonthistopic.Theirtheorieswillbeanalyzedinchronologicalordersothatitwillbeeasiertofollowtheevolutionofthisconcept.Thesetheoriescanbesubstantiallydividedintothreemaingroups.Inthefirsttherearethosetranslationscholarswhoareinfavourofalinguisticapproachtotranslationandwhoseemtoforgetthattranslationinitselfisnotmerelyamatteroflinguistics.Infact,whenamessageistransferredfromtheSLtoTL,thetranslatorisalsodealingwithtwodifferentculturesatthesametime.ThisparticularaspectseemstohavebeentakenintoconsiderationbythesecondgroupoftheoristswhoregardtranslationequivalenceasbeingessentiallyatransferofthemessagefromtheSCtotheTCandapragmatic/semanticorfunctionallyorientedapproachtotranslation.Finally,thereareothertranslationscholarswhoseemtostandinthemiddle,suchasBakerforinstance,whoclaimsthatequivalenceisused'forthesakeofconvenience—becausemosttranslatorsareusedtoitratherthanbecauseithasanytheoreticalstatus'(quotedinKenny,1998:
77).
1.1VinayandDarbelnetandtheirdefinitionofequivalenceintranslation
VinayandDarbelnetviewequivalence-orientedtranslationasaprocedurewhich'replicatesthesamesituationasintheoriginal,whilstusingcompletelydifferentwording'(ibid.:
342).Theyalsosuggestthat,ifthisprocedureisappliedduringthetranslationprocess,itcanmaintainthestylisticimpactoftheSLtextintheTLtext.Accordingtothem,equivalenceisthereforetheidealmethodwhenthetranslatorhastodealwithproverbs,idioms,clichés,nominaloradjectivalphrasesandtheonomatopoeiaofanimalsounds.
Withregardtoequivalentexpressionsbetweenlanguagepairs,VinayandDarbelnetclaimthattheyareacceptableaslongastheyarelistedinabilingualdictionaryas'fullequivalents'(ibid.:
255).However,latertheynotethatglossariesandcollectionsofidiomaticexpressions'canneverbeexhaustive'(ibid.:
256).Theyconcludebysayingthat'theneedforcreatingequivalencesarisesfromthesituation,anditisinthesituationoftheSLtextthattranslatorshavetolookforasolution'(ibid.:
255).Indeed,theyarguethatevenifthesemanticequivalentofanexpressionintheSLtextisquotedinadictionaryoraglossary,itisnotenough,anditdoesnotguaranteeasuccessfultranslation.Theyprovideanumberofexamplestoprovetheirtheory,andthefollowingexpressionappearsintheirlist:
TakeoneisafixedexpressionwhichwouldhaveasanequivalentFrenchtranslationPrenez-enun.However,iftheexpressionappearedasanoticenexttoabasketoffreesamplesinalargestore,thetranslatorwouldhavetolookforanequivalentterminasimilarsituationandusetheexpressionÉchantillongratuit(ibid.:
256).
1.2Jakobsonandtheconceptofequivalenceindifference
RomanJakobson'sstudyofequivalencegavenewimpetustothetheoreticalanalysisoftranslationsinceheintroducedthenotionof'equivalenceindifference'.Onthebasisofhissemioticapproachtolanguageandhisaphorism'thereisnosignatumwithoutsignum'(1959:
232),hesuggeststhreekindsoftranslation:
∙Intralingual(withinonelanguage,i.e.rewordingorparaphrase)
∙Interlingual(betweentwolanguages)
∙Intersemiotic(betweensignsystems)
Jakobsonclaimsthat,inthecaseofinterlingualtranslation,thetranslatormakesuseofsynonymsinordertogettheSTmessageacross.Thismeansthatininterlingualtranslationsthereisnofullequivalencebetweencodeunits.Accordingtohistheory,'translationinvolvestwoequivalentmessagesintwodifferentcodes'(ibid.:
233).Jakobsongoesontosaythatfromagrammaticalpointofviewlanguagesmaydifferfromoneanothertoagreaterorlesserdegree,butthisdoesnotmeanthatatranslationcannotbepossible,inotherwords,thatthetranslatormayfacetheproblemofnotfindingatranslationequivalent.Heacknowledgesthat'wheneverthereisdeficiency,terminologymaybequalifiedandamplifiedbyloanwordsorloan-translations,neologismsorsemanticshifts,andfinally,bycircumlocutions'(ibid.:
234).JakobsonprovidesanumberofexamplesbycomparingEnglishandRussianlanguagestructuresandexplainsthatinsuchcaseswherethereisnoaliteralequivalentforaparticularSTwordorsentence,thenitisuptothetranslatortochoosethemostsuitablewaytorenderitintheTT.
ThereseemstobesomesimilaritybetweenVinayandDarbelnet'stheoryoftranslationproceduresandJakobson'stheoryoftranslation.Boththeoriesstressthefactthat,wheneveralinguisticapproachisnolongersuitabletocarryoutatranslation,thetranslatorcanrelyonotherproceduressuchasloan-translations,neologismsandthelike.Boththeoriesrecognizethelimitationsofalinguistictheoryandarguethatatranslationcanneverbeimpossiblesincethereareseveralmethodsthatthetranslatorcanchoose.Theroleofthetranslatorasthepersonwhodecideshowtocarryoutthetranslationisemphasizedinboththeories.BothVinayandDarbelnetaswellasJakobsonconceivethetranslationtaskassomethingwhichcanalwaysbecarriedoutfromonelanguagetoanother,regardlessoftheculturalorgrammaticaldifferencesbetweenSTandTT.
ItcanbeconcludedthatJakobson'stheoryisessentiallybasedonhissemioticapproachtotranslationaccordingtowhichthetranslatorhastorecodetheSTmessagefirstandthens/hehastotransmititintoanequivalentmessagefortheTC.
1.3NidaandTaber:
Formalcorrespondenceanddynamicequivalence
Nidaarguedthattherearetwodifferenttypesofequivalence,namelyformalequivalence—whichinthesecondeditionbyNidaandTaber(1982)isreferredtoasformalcorrespondence—anddynamicequivalence.Formalcorrespondence'focusesattentiononthemessageitself,inbothformandcontent',unlikedynamicequivalencewhichisbasedupon'theprincipleofequivalenteffect'(1964:
159).Inthesecondedition(1982)ortheirwork,thetwotheoristsprovideamoredetailedexplanationofeachtypeofequivalence.
FormalcorrespondenceconsistsofaTLitemwhichrepresentstheclosestequivalentofaSLwordorphrase.NidaandTabermakeitclearthattherearenotalwaysformalequivalentsbetweenlanguagepairs.Theythereforesuggestthattheseformalequivalentsshouldbeusedwhereverpossibleifthetranslationaimsatachievingformalratherthandynamicequivalence.TheuseofformalequivalentsmightattimeshaveseriousimplicationsintheTTsincethetranslationwillnotbeeasilyunderstoodbythetargetaudience(Fawcett,1997).NidaandTaberthemselvesassertthat'Typically,formalcorrespondencedistortsthegrammaticalandstylisticpatternsofthereceptorlanguage,andhencedistortsthemessage,soastocausethereceptortomisunderstandortolaborundulyhard'(ibid.:
201).
DynamicequivalenceisdefinedasatranslationprincipleaccordingtowhichatranslatorseekstotranslatethemeaningoftheoriginalinsuchawaythattheTLwordingwilltriggerthesameimpactontheTCaudienceastheoriginalwordingdidupontheSTaudience.Theyarguethat'Frequently,theformoftheoriginaltextischanged;butaslongasthechangefollowstherulesofbacktransformationinthesourcelanguage,ofcontextualconsistencyinthetransfer,andoftransformationinthereceptorlanguage,themessageispreservedandthetranslationisfaithful'(NidaandTaber,1982:
200).
OnecaneasilyseethatNidaisinfavouroftheapplicationofdynamicequivalence,asamoreeffectivetranslationprocedure.ThisisperfectlyunderstandableifwetakeintoaccountthecontextofthesituationinwhichNidawasdealingwiththetranslationphenomenon,thatistosay,histranslationoftheBible.Thus,theproductofthetranslationprocess,thatisthetextintheTL,musthavethesameimpactonthedifferentreadersitwasaddressing.OnlyinNidaandTaber'seditionisitclearlystatedthat'dynamicequivalenceintranslationisfarmorethanmerecorrectcommunicationofinformation'(ibid:
25).
Despiteusingalinguisticapproachtotranslation,Nidaismuchmoreinterestedinthemessageofthetextor,inotherwords,initssemanticquality.Hethereforestrivestomakesurethatthismessageremainsclearinthetargettext.
1.4Catfordandtheintroductionoftranslationshifts
Catford'sapproachtotranslationequivalenceclearlydiffersfromthatadoptedbyNidasinceCatfordhadapreferenceforamorelinguistic-basedapproachtotranslationandthisapproachisbasedonthelinguisticworkofFirthandHalliday.Hismaincontributioninthefieldof
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Equivalence in Translation Between Myth and Reality
链接地址:https://www.bdocx.com/doc/10050102.html