equivalenceintranslationtheoryi

equivalenceintranslationtheoryi内容摘要：

or naturalness. (1820): “The language of translation ought…to be a pure, impalpable and invisible element, the medium of thought and feeling... it ought never to attract attention to itself...” 2/ the general context of the given message, 3/ the targetlanguage audience. Equivalence in Translation Theory XII Nida’s approach to equivalence IV Elimination of foreignness in two areas: a/ in grammar: changes are easier to carry out as structural differences make such changes pulsory, it is inevitable to rearrange the word order, a noun is often translated into a verb or vice versa, a noun might be replaced with a pronoun, etc. b/ in lexis: adjustment of the lexical structures of the SL to those of the TL much more difficult. Three lexical levels: • names to which an equivalent is easy to find (foly243。 , fa, kő, etc.) • names that denote culturally different objects but functionally similar objects (. k246。 nyv) • names that refer to some cultural peculiarities such as synagogue. It is not easy to escape their foreignness, and if the cultures in question are very remote from each other, it appears to be totally impossible. Equivalence in Translation Theory XIII Nida’s approach to equivalence V 2/ the general context of the given message: a/ sentence intonation and rhythm, b/ reflection of the stylistic features of the SL text: • how to avoid vulgarisms in the translation of a text written in an elevated style, • how to avoid making an everyday text read like a plicated legal document because of the translator‟s effort to eliminate all the ambiguities, • an E text written in prose will appear colourless and dull in Spanish translation, whereas Spanish prose in E translation may sound unbearably loquacious, • the importance of avoiding anachronisms and the importance of reflecting all shades of emotion of the SL text in the TL. Equivalence in Translation Theory XIV Nida’s approach to equivalence VI 3/ the targetlanguage audience: the translator must be familiar with the TL reader‟s knowledge of the world, his experience and ability to perceive and understand things around him (“capacity of decoding”). The ideal is for the translation to achieve the same effect as the original has in the SL environment. A frequently quoted example from the Bible: Lamb of God → Seal of God for an Eskimo audience. However 1: the response of the original, . the SL audience cannot always be reconstructed (literary works of several hundred years old or deriving from an entirely different culture). However 2: to achieve the same effect is a requirement in the case of translations of scientific or technical works written for a contemporary audience. Equivalence in Translation Theory XV Other views on equivalence I Otto Kade (1968) 4 types of equivalences: • total equivalence: one SL unit → one permanent TL equivalent (. terms, names of institutions, etc.)。 • optional equivalence: a given SL unit → several TL equivalents (. H fesz252。 lts233。 g, G Spannung → E voltage, tension, stress, pressure)。 • approximate equivalence: the meaning of a SL unit is divided between two TL equivalents (. H l225。 b → E leg/ foot, H arc → E face/ cheek, G Himmel → E sky/heaven。 • zero equivalence: SL unit → no TL equivalent (.. culturespecific words) Equivalence in Translation Theory XVI Other views on equivalence II Gert J228。 ger (1975) distinguishes • municative equivalence: the „municative value” does not change in translation, . it produces the same effect as the TL, see Nida. However, J228。 ger regards it as a psychological aspect that cannot be studied with the tools of linguistics。 • functional equivalence: „functional values” can be studied linguistically – a precondition of functional equivalence Functional values: the sum of the functions of the linguistic signs the sum of their meanings: a/ semantic meaning this is what b/ syntactic meaning: grammatical functions, . topicment has to be c/ pragmatic meaning realised linguistically preserved in translation Equivalence in Translation Theory XVII Other views on equivalence III . Barkhudarov(1975) distinguish。