论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Thanks to translations， varies cultures are allowed to exchange with one another. One the one hand， this has been promoting the studies of translation. On the other hand， this poses huge challenges on translators， because it is hard to define what is a good target translation when a source text is translated. There is a variety of standards to evaluate the quality of a translation， among which equivalence seems to be the most controversial one. On the analysis of studies on equivalence， this essay discusses the role of equivalence in the practice of translating with illustrations of Chinese-English and English-Chinese translation. Indeed， to translate a source text into a target one is based on the equivalence among languages. However， in the process of translating， it can be adjusted to some extent for the sake of the acceptability in the target culture.
【Key words】equivalence； culture； language； acceptability
Much attention is devoted to the notion of equivalence which bridges a source language and a target language in the process of translation， and serves as a crucial issue in the studies of translation. According to Catford （1965： 20）， the term “equivalent” plays a central role in the definition of translation and what is to be achieved in the process of translation is to find translation equivalents in the target language. In this essay， I intend to discuss the role of equivalence in the practice of translation.
The understanding of equivalence vary from scholar to scholar. Catford （1965： 27） defines equivalence as “empirical phenomenon” and （ibid.： 49） argues that the realisation of equivalence relies on certain conditions， while Bassnett （1980/2002： 37-38） holds that equivalence cannot be a means to achieve sameness between a source language and its target version. Similarly， Jakobson （2000： 114） states that no matter what kinds of translation， namely “intranlingual translation， interlingual translation or intersemiotic translation”， are involved， complete equivalence is scarcely realised. Also， Baker （1992： 6） points out the relativity of equivalence which is caused by different features of languages and diverse cultures. Accordingly， relevant theories on the study of equivalence are put forward， which can be found in the studies of Nida （1964）， Catford （1965） and Newmark （1981）. In spite of translatability among languages， it is obvious that there is no absolute equivalence among different language systems and cultures. It seems that the notion of equivalence is over-used. Bassnett （1980/2002： 34） argues that it is “a much-used and abused term in translation studies”. In fact， it is ideal to completely retain the characteristics both in the linguistic and cultural levels of a source text and to make the target text accepted at the same time. However， it is nearly impossible to succeed， as a result of which there appears a conflict lying in two different aims of translation， namely source-oriented translation and recipient-oriented translation. With the stress on foreignization in the practice of translation， Venuti （1995： 22-23） argues that the characteristics of the source language should be preserved in the situation where “ethnocentric violence” ， which means that a source culture and a target culture are not socially equal， happens， whereas others， such as Nida （1964） and Newmark（1981）， hold that a target text should produce the same effect on the target readers as the one that its source text produces on its readers. They take recipients’ acceptability into account， and emphasise the importance of the effect of translation. The controversy shows that the notion of equivalence is not a static concept. Adopting different methods may produce multiple versions of a translated text.
According to Sch?ffner （1998： 238）， translation is a production of decision making， so it is the aim of translation that affects decisions made by translators in the process of translation. In this sense， if recipients’ acceptability and the effect produced by the target text are overlooked， the translation may lose its functions. Hence， equivalence should serve as a channel fulfil the purpose rather than the ultimate aim of translation. In practice， it is necessary to balance the relations between source-oriented equivalence and target-oriented equivalence according to the purpose of a certain translation. However， this does not mean that equivalence is arbitrary. There are rules which regulate how to realise equivalence in terms of equivalent forms and varying degrees （Toury 2000： 204）. On the other hand， the realisation of equivalence is restricted by various factors. Catford （1965： 94） states that linguistic and cultural obstacles lead to the failure in the achievement of equivalence. The former usually causes non-equivalence in form because of unique characteristics of the source language and the target language， while the latter， involving the acceptability in another culture， requires changes in translation. As a result， how much two language systems and two cultures are different from each other determines the degree to which equivalence can be achieved. Therefore， the role of equivalence should not be overstated. In Chinese-English and English-Chinse translation， with regards to form， full equivalence between the two languages is hardly realized because Chinese belongs to Sino-Tibetan family while English is an Indo-European language. There are many differences between the two language families. In terms of cultures， both languages have been derived from perspective histories， customs and habits. For instance， Chinese idioms feature in conciseness and cultural connotation. In pursuit of retaining all the characteristics and elements of these idioms， translated into English， their English versions need to be unreadable to target readers. So， for example， the Chinese idiom mu yi cheng zhou， which means “nothing can be changed when it is done”， can be translated equivalently into English， and the translation turns to “the wood has become boats.” However， due to the cultural difference， the literal translation is much likely to confuse target readers. Hence， it is better to paraphrase or substitute the idiom to make the translation readable and acquire the same response from English-spoken readers. Other typical examples can be seen in the translation of local dishes and costumes that do not exist in the other culture. For instance， if Toad in the Hole， a British dish， is translated into Chinese for the sake of full equivalence， most diners do not tend to order it， since toad， in the Chinese culture， is unpopular and unlikely to be cooked as food. In this sense， the translation is unacceptable in the target culture.
Equivalence makes it feasible to transfer one language into another， and provides translators with methods in practice. However， due to its limitations， it cannot realise sameness between two languages， such as Chinese and English， so that the role of equivalence cannot be exaggerated. One cannot blindly pursue equivalence at the expense of losing the aim of translation. Generally， the notion of equivalence is dynamic. Regulated by translation rules， equivalence should be adjusted for the acceptability to readers from the target culture .
References：
[1]Baker，Mona（1992）In Other Words：A coursebook on translation，London
【Key words】equivalence； culture； language； acceptability
Much attention is devoted to the notion of equivalence which bridges a source language and a target language in the process of translation， and serves as a crucial issue in the studies of translation. According to Catford （1965： 20）， the term “equivalent” plays a central role in the definition of translation and what is to be achieved in the process of translation is to find translation equivalents in the target language. In this essay， I intend to discuss the role of equivalence in the practice of translation.
The understanding of equivalence vary from scholar to scholar. Catford （1965： 27） defines equivalence as “empirical phenomenon” and （ibid.： 49） argues that the realisation of equivalence relies on certain conditions， while Bassnett （1980/2002： 37-38） holds that equivalence cannot be a means to achieve sameness between a source language and its target version. Similarly， Jakobson （2000： 114） states that no matter what kinds of translation， namely “intranlingual translation， interlingual translation or intersemiotic translation”， are involved， complete equivalence is scarcely realised. Also， Baker （1992： 6） points out the relativity of equivalence which is caused by different features of languages and diverse cultures. Accordingly， relevant theories on the study of equivalence are put forward， which can be found in the studies of Nida （1964）， Catford （1965） and Newmark （1981）. In spite of translatability among languages， it is obvious that there is no absolute equivalence among different language systems and cultures. It seems that the notion of equivalence is over-used. Bassnett （1980/2002： 34） argues that it is “a much-used and abused term in translation studies”. In fact， it is ideal to completely retain the characteristics both in the linguistic and cultural levels of a source text and to make the target text accepted at the same time. However， it is nearly impossible to succeed， as a result of which there appears a conflict lying in two different aims of translation， namely source-oriented translation and recipient-oriented translation. With the stress on foreignization in the practice of translation， Venuti （1995： 22-23） argues that the characteristics of the source language should be preserved in the situation where “ethnocentric violence” ， which means that a source culture and a target culture are not socially equal， happens， whereas others， such as Nida （1964） and Newmark（1981）， hold that a target text should produce the same effect on the target readers as the one that its source text produces on its readers. They take recipients’ acceptability into account， and emphasise the importance of the effect of translation. The controversy shows that the notion of equivalence is not a static concept. Adopting different methods may produce multiple versions of a translated text.
According to Sch?ffner （1998： 238）， translation is a production of decision making， so it is the aim of translation that affects decisions made by translators in the process of translation. In this sense， if recipients’ acceptability and the effect produced by the target text are overlooked， the translation may lose its functions. Hence， equivalence should serve as a channel fulfil the purpose rather than the ultimate aim of translation. In practice， it is necessary to balance the relations between source-oriented equivalence and target-oriented equivalence according to the purpose of a certain translation. However， this does not mean that equivalence is arbitrary. There are rules which regulate how to realise equivalence in terms of equivalent forms and varying degrees （Toury 2000： 204）. On the other hand， the realisation of equivalence is restricted by various factors. Catford （1965： 94） states that linguistic and cultural obstacles lead to the failure in the achievement of equivalence. The former usually causes non-equivalence in form because of unique characteristics of the source language and the target language， while the latter， involving the acceptability in another culture， requires changes in translation. As a result， how much two language systems and two cultures are different from each other determines the degree to which equivalence can be achieved. Therefore， the role of equivalence should not be overstated. In Chinese-English and English-Chinse translation， with regards to form， full equivalence between the two languages is hardly realized because Chinese belongs to Sino-Tibetan family while English is an Indo-European language. There are many differences between the two language families. In terms of cultures， both languages have been derived from perspective histories， customs and habits. For instance， Chinese idioms feature in conciseness and cultural connotation. In pursuit of retaining all the characteristics and elements of these idioms， translated into English， their English versions need to be unreadable to target readers. So， for example， the Chinese idiom mu yi cheng zhou， which means “nothing can be changed when it is done”， can be translated equivalently into English， and the translation turns to “the wood has become boats.” However， due to the cultural difference， the literal translation is much likely to confuse target readers. Hence， it is better to paraphrase or substitute the idiom to make the translation readable and acquire the same response from English-spoken readers. Other typical examples can be seen in the translation of local dishes and costumes that do not exist in the other culture. For instance， if Toad in the Hole， a British dish， is translated into Chinese for the sake of full equivalence， most diners do not tend to order it， since toad， in the Chinese culture， is unpopular and unlikely to be cooked as food. In this sense， the translation is unacceptable in the target culture.
Equivalence makes it feasible to transfer one language into another， and provides translators with methods in practice. However， due to its limitations， it cannot realise sameness between two languages， such as Chinese and English， so that the role of equivalence cannot be exaggerated. One cannot blindly pursue equivalence at the expense of losing the aim of translation. Generally， the notion of equivalence is dynamic. Regulated by translation rules， equivalence should be adjusted for the acceptability to readers from the target culture .
References：
[1]Baker，Mona（1992）In Other Words：A coursebook on translation，London