毕业设计外文翻译例文分析解析

大连科技学院

毕业设计(论文)外文翻译

学生姓名专业班级

指导教师职称

所在单位

教研室主任

完成日期 2016年4月15日

Translation Equivalence

Despite the fact that the world is becoming a global village, translation remains a major way for languages and cultures to interact and influence each other. And name translation, especially government name translation, occupies a quite significant place in international exchange.

Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text. While interpreting—the facilitating of oral or sign-language communication between users of different languages—antedates writing, translation began only after the appearance of written literature. There exist partial translations of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (ca. 2000 BCE) into Southwest Asian languages of the second millennium BCE. Translators always risk inappropriate spill-over of source-language idiom and usage into the target-language translation. On the other hand, spill-overs have imported useful source-language calques and loanwords that have enriched the target languages. Indeed, translators have helped substantially to shape the languages into which they have translated. Due to the demands of business documentation consequent to the Industrial Revolution that began in the mid-18th century, some translation specialties have become formalized, with dedicated schools and professional associations. Because of the laboriousness of translation, since the 1940s engineers have sought to automate translation (machine translation) or to mechanically aid the human translator (computer-assisted translation). The rise of the Internet has fostered a world-wide market for translation services and has facilitated language localization

It is generally accepted that translation, not as a separate entity, blooms into flower under such circumstances like culture, societal functions, politics and power relations. Nowadays, the field of translation studies is immersed with abundantly diversified translation standards, with no exception that some of them are presented by renowned figures and are rather authoritative. In the translation practice, however, how should we select the so-called translation standards to serve as our guidelines in the translation process and how should we adopt the translation standards to evaluate a translation product?

In the macro - context of flourish of linguistic theories, theorists in the translation circle, keep to the golden law of the principle of equivalence. The theory of Translation Equivalence is the central issue in western translation theories. And the presentation of this theory gives great impetus to the development and improvement of translation theory. It’s not diffi cult for us to discover that it is the theory of Translation Equivalence that serves as guidelines in government name translation in China. Name translation, as defined, is the replacement of the

name in the source language by an equivalent name or other words in the target language. Translating Chinese government names into English, similarly, is replacing the Chinese government name with an equivalent in English.

Metaphorically speaking, translation is often described as a moving trajectory going from A to B along a path or a container to carry something across from A to B. This view is commonly held by both translation practitioners and theorists in the West. In this view, they do not expect that this trajectory or something will change its identity as it moves or as it is carried. In China, to translate is also understood by many people normally as “to translate the whole text sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph, without any omission, addition, or other changes. In both views, the source text and the target text must be “the same”. This helps explain the etymological source for the term “translation equivalence”. It is in essence a word which describes the relationship between the ST and the TT.

Equivalence means the state or fact or property of being equivalent. It is widely used in several scientific fields such as chemistry and mathematics. Therefore, it comes to have a strong scientific meaning that is rather absolute and concise. Influenced by this, translation equivalence also comes to have an absolute denotation though it was first applied in translation study as a general word. From a linguistic point of view, it can be divided into three sub-types, i.e., formal equivalence, semantic equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence. In actual translation, it frequently happens that they cannot be obtained at the same time, thus forming a kind of relative translation equivalence in terms of quality. In terms of quantity, sometimes the ST and TT are not equivalent too. Absolute translation equivalence both in quality and quantity, even though obtainable, is limited to a few cases.

The following is a brief discussion of translation equivalence study conducted by three influential western scholars, Eugene Nida, Andrew Chesterman and Peter Newmark. It’s expected that their studies can instruct GNT study in China and provide translators with insightful methods.

Nida’s definition of translation is: “Translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” It i s a replacement of textual material in one language〔SL〕by equivalent textual material in another language（TL）. The translator must strive for equivalence rather than identity. In a sense, this is just another way of emphasizing the reproducing of the message rather than the conservation of the form of the utterance. The message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language to reproduce as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original. Translation equivalence is an empirical phenomenon discovered by

comparing SL and TL texts and it’s a useful operational concept like the term “unit of translati on”.

Nida argues that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content, whereas dynamic equivalence is based upon “the principle of equivalent effect”.

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a ST word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. Therefore, formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target readership. According to Nida and Taber, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard.

Dyn amic equivalence is based on what Nida calls “the principle of equivalent effect” where the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message. The message has to be modified to the receptor’s linguistic needs and cultural expectation and aims at complete naturalness of expression. Naturalness is a key requirement for Nida. He defines the goal of dynamic equivalence as seeking the closest natural equivalent to the SL message. This receptor-oriented approach considers adaptations of grammar, of lexicon and of cultural references to be essential in order to achieve naturalness; the TL should not show interference from the SL, and the ‘foreignness ‘of the ST setting is minimized.

Nida is in favor of the application of dynamic equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber's edition is it clearly stated that dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information.

As Andrew Chesterman points out in his recent book Memes of Translation, equivalence is one of the five element of translation theory, standing shoulder to shoulder with source-target, untranslatability, free-vs-literal, All-writing-is-translating in importance. Pragmatically speaking, observed Chesterman, “the only true examples of equivalence (i.e., absolute equivalence) are those in which an ST item X is invariably translated into a given TL as Y, and vice versa. Typical examples would be words denoting numbers (with the exception

of contexts in which they have culture-bound connotations, such as “magic” or “unlucky”), certain technical terms (oxygen, molecule) and the like. From this point of view, the only true test of equivalence would be invariable back-translation. This, of course, is unlikely to occur except in the case of a small set of lexical items, or perhaps simple isolated syntactic structure”.

Peter Newmark. Departing from Nida’s receptor-oriented line, Newmark argues that the success of equivalent effect is “illusory “and that the conflict of loyalties and the gap between emphasis on source and target language will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice. He suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms with those of semantic and communicative translation. The former attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original, while the latter “attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original.” Newmark’s description of communicative translation resembles Nida’s dynamic equivalence in the effect it is trying to create on the TT reader, while semantic translation has similarities to Nida’s formal equivalence.

Meanwhile, Newmark points out that only by combining both semantic and communicative translation can we achieve the goal of keeping the ‘spirit’ of the original. Semantic translation requires the translator retain the aesthetic value of the original, trying his best to keep the linguistic feature and characteristic style of the author. According to semantic translation, the translator should always retain the semantic and syntactic structures of the original. Deletion and abridgement lead to distortion of the author’s intention and his writing style.

翻译对等

尽管全世界正在渐渐成为一个地球村，但翻译仍然是语言和和文化之间的交流互动和相互影响的主要方式之一。而名称的翻译，特别是政府机构名称的翻译，更特别是其中重要的一环。

翻译，是指在准确通顺的基础上，把一种语言信息转变成另一种语言信息的活动。这个过程从逻辑上可以分为两个阶段：首先，必须从源语言中得到含义，然后把信息重新编码成目标语言。所有的这两步都要求对语言语意学的知识以及对语言使用者文化的了解。除了要保留原有的意思外，一个好的翻译，对于目标语言的使用者来说，应该要能像是以母语使用者说或写得那般流畅，并且要符合译入的语言的习惯（除非是在特殊情况下，演说者并不打算像一个本语言使用者那样说话，例如在戏剧中）。翻译分为口译和笔译。口译又称为“传译”，顾名思义，是指译员以口语的方式，将需要译入的语言转换为译出语。由于语言必定早于文字出现，因此口译的出现也必定早于笔译。所有与语言相关的事物（例如文学和演讲）基本上都可以进行翻译，包括小说、电影、诗歌、演讲等等。但是不同的领域，翻译的困难度也不同。例如，诗歌几乎是不可能准确翻译的，因为诗歌的形式、音韵等，都是组成其含义的一分子。很多非文学类文本的翻译工作，包括软件手册和其他商业及专业文本，注重的是意义的传达，以能通顺传意为主要要求。在全球化的潮流下，不但有越来越多的国际组织，同时企业的经营也越来越以全球观点出发，这也带动了国际化与本地化产业的兴起。如果说非文学作品的翻译是一项可以学习的技能的话，那么翻译文学作品甚至诗歌，往往可以说是一门艺术，需要一些天赋。文学翻译出于美学的考虑，在翻译时不能仅注重字对字、词对词的翻译，更不能忽略了文化间的不同点，否则经常会导致译文在语意、美感、风格上的流失。总之，一个优秀的翻译人员必须在准确性和可读性之间找到很好的平衡。

翻译，并不是一个个单一的个体，它只有在文化和社会职能，政治和权力关系的情境下进行时才能开枝散叶，这一点已经普遍为人们所接受。而当今社会，翻译研究领域充斥着大量五花八门的各种各样的翻译标准，毫无例外，有些是由名人名家或著名学者提出的，具有相当不小的权威性和影响力。但是在翻译的实践中，应如何去选择所谓的“翻译标准”为我们的翻译成果把关？又应当采取何种翻译标准来评价一份翻译的文本好坏呢？

在语言学理论正在蓬勃发展的大背景下，翻译学界的理论学家们坚持遵守着“对等原则”的黄金定律。翻译对等论是西方翻译理论非常重要的核心学说。这个理论的出现给翻译理论的进步和发展注入了相当大的动力。我们很容易注意到，在中国，正是翻译对等论在作为英语翻译方法政府机构名称的指导准则。名称翻译的准确定义是用目的语的对等名称或其他词语来替换需要翻译的源语言的名称。与之相似的是，中国政府机构名称的英译却是用英文中的对等名称来替换中国政府机构的中文名称。

打一个比方吧，人们常常将翻译的过程形容为一个移动的轨道。它沿着一条小路或穿过一个容器一样的东西将某些信息由A处传达至B处。在西方国家的翻译从业者和理论学家们普遍赞同这一个比喻。他们认为在信息移动或者传递的过程中，这个轨道一样的东西并不会改变信息本身的身份特征。而且许多中国人通常也将翻译这种行为理解为“逐句逐段地翻译整篇文章，不可以去省略，添加，或有任何的改动。中西方的两种观点中都认为源语文本和目的语的文本必须完全相同。这正好说明了“翻译对等理论”的词源。从词语本质上来说，这个词语非常形象的描述了源语文本和目的语言文本之间的微妙的关系，让我们翻译的人可以清楚的了解两者的共同之处。

对等是指两者相等的一种状态，事实或者性质。这个词语广泛应用于好比化学，数学之类的科学领域。因此，它渐渐的带上了浓厚的科学意味，十分绝对而且准确。受其影响，翻译对等这一原则也逐渐拥有了绝对的指示意义，但是一开始它是作为类别词被应用于翻译研究中的。从语言学的角度可以将翻译对等原则分为三类，那就是，形式对等，语意对等和语用对等。我们在实际的翻译实践中经常发生这种情况，这三种对等并不能同时实现，所以从翻译质量方面看对等也只是相对的。但是从翻译数量方面看，源语文本和目的语的语文本有时也不是相等的。其中翻译质量和数量的绝对对等虽然可以实现，但也仅仅局限于少数例子。

下面我们将简单地讨论一下翻译对等理论，并且品评三位比较具影响力的西方翻译学者，尤金·奈达，安德鲁·切斯特曼和彼得·纽马克关于翻译对等论的研究成果。希望他们的理论能够为中国政府机构名称的翻译和研究指引方向，并为广大译者启蒙思想和给予借鉴。

尤金·奈达对翻译的定义是：“翻译是接受语和复制源语的信息的最近似的自然等值，首先在意思方面，其次在文体方面.”这是一种语言（源语）的文本材料被另一种语言（目的语）对等的文本材料替换的过程。译者必须努力求得等值而不是完全一样，从某种意义上讲，这是强调复制的信息而不是保留话语的形式。目的语的信息应与其源语的不同成分尽可能吻合，以复制原文的形式和内容。翻译等值是在比较其源语和目的语时发现的一种经验性的现象，就像翻译单位一样，是有用的并且是指导操作的概念。

奈达认为对等有两种分类，即形式对等和动态对等。形式对等更关注信息本身，不仅关注其形式，也关注它的内容。动态对等建立在“对等效果原则”的基础之上。

形式上的翻译对等指的是去在目的语中找到代表源语文本中词或词组的最近似的对等词。著名的翻译学家奈达和泰伯曾明确的表示，语言对中并不是总存在形式对等词。因此，如果翻译的目的在于达到形式对等而非动态对等时，那就尽可能使用形式对等词。然而，由于目的语的读者要理解译作者并不简单，需要翻译的原本语言在目的语中的形式对对等词有时会带有强烈的隐含意义。根据翻译学家奈达和泰伯的理论，形式对等会扭曲输入语言的语法和文体形式，因此扭曲了原文要传达的信息，导致目的语的读者产生误解或难以理解。

动态对等的原则却是建立在被奈达称作“对等效果原则”的基础上的。这种原则认为目标文本的接受者和信息之间的关系应当同源语文本的接受者和信息之间的关系是基本相同的。作为翻译的人必须根据目的语读者的去语言需求和文化的期望去修改信息，让读者可以清楚明白被翻译的原文的意思，使译文表达能够完全的自然。奈达对翻译作品的关键要求就是自然。他将动态对等的目标定义为寻求与其源语的信息最近似的自然对等语。这种以目标文本的接受者为导向的方法，认为翻译的人为了使译文清新自然，所以对语法，文化和词汇所指进行适度调整相当重要。所以我们要翻译的目的语不应受到源语干扰，并且需要翻译的源语的环境与目的语的环境的差异性应该被我们降低到最小。

奈达本人更倾向于应用动态对等论，他认为这种翻译的方法更为有效。所以，翻译过程的产品，就是目的语文本，必须在译入语的读者中产生相同的影响。翻译中的动态对等才能不仅仅局限于让读者们正确无误地交流信息，这一点只有在著名翻译学家奈达和泰伯的书中才有明确阐述。

安德鲁·切斯特曼在他最新出版的翻译理论书籍《翻译模因论》中指出，翻译中的对等是翻译理论的五个非常重要的因素之一，是和其他四大重要因素一样重要的，那就是源语和目的语的关系，文本不可译性，文本的异议与直译以及“所有写作都是翻译”的论述。切斯特曼从语用学的角度分析后得出了这样的理论：在翻译中真正的对等，即绝对对等，只有“源语文本中的X在任何情况下都被译为特定目的语文本中的Y，反之亦然”这一种情形。典型的例子有数词（这种情况也有例外，在某些情境下，它们有特定的文化内涵，例如表示“魔力”或“霉运”）和一些专业性词汇，如氧气，分子等。如此看来，真正能够检验对等的唯一方法就是“反译”，即翻译目的语中的对等词，看其是否与原文本吻合。当然，除了少数词语和简单孤立的句法结构，绝对对等是不太可能实现的。

与奈达的以接受者为导向的翻译方法不同，纽马克则认为取得对等效果的希望是很渺茫的,把大部分的精力放在不同对象而产生的冲突，文本的源语或目的语之间的分歧一直是翻译理论与实践中的首要难题。所以他建议使用语义翻译和交际翻译的方法替换过去的做法，来缩小不同对象们产生的分歧。语义翻译指的是试图在译入语语义和句法结构允许的范围内，尽可能的准确地传达原文的上下文的意思。而交际翻译则试图使翻译作品对译文读者产生的效果尽量和原作对原文读者产生的效果是一样的。这样就能减少不同读者的文化差异，从而使这些读者在阅读中能有相同的感受。纽马克对交际翻译的描述与奈达的动态对等理论是十分相似的，因为它也试图使翻译作品在译文读者身上产生相似的效果，而语义翻译和奈达的形式对等有很大的相似之处。

与此同时，纽马克指出，作为翻译文本的学者，我们只有结合应用语义和交际翻译的原则才能实现保持原文精髓不被我们翻译后丢失这一重要目标。语义翻译要求译者保留原文的审美价值，尽力维持作者的语言特征和独特风格。根据语义翻译论，作为译者

应该保留原文的重要语义和相似的句法结构。我们对原文文本中信息的删除和缩略都会导致对作者创作目的和写作风格的扭曲。