论西方翻译理论中的对等概念
详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文
摘要
作为西方翻译理论的语言学派的一个核心概念,对等的影响力存在了两千多年,并在二十世纪下半叶该学派的蓬勃发展中达到极致。以巴托、泰特勒等为代表的早期翻译理论家强调原作者的绝对权威,主张以原文本为中心的包括形式、内容和风格的对等。二十世纪六十年代,英国学者卡特福德借鉴系统功能语言学等学说对翻译中的所谓对等关系做了详细的分类和系统地描述。前苏联的费道罗夫、巴尔胡达罗夫、什维采尔和科米萨罗夫等学者以马克思主义的语言观为理论基础,关注对等的层次和翻译单位等问题,与当时的翻译的文艺学派展开了激烈论战。奈达的灵活对等和等效论以交际学理论及接受美学理论为指导,突破了之前的对等理论的原文本中心主义,强调话语的语用效果对等,是对对等学说的一大推动。从语言的三维视角——语义,语法(形式),语用——出发,可以区分翻译中的三种对等关系—
    
    —语义对等(指代对等和含义对等),形式对等和语用对等。语篇层面的对等既有形式上的衔接手段的异同,也有语用要素(连贯、关联性、意图性等)造成的语言效果的异同。语篇和语用对等是对等理论的最新成果,其对翻译实践的指导作用不可低估。然而,尽管我们可以对翻译中的种种对等关系作出分类和描述,它作为一种规定性的评价标准难免要招致众多批评。对等理论的脆弱之处首先在于它的相对性,不同语言间的异质性决定了完全对等之不可能。其次,对等的必要性和可能性与翻译的目的直接相关。最后,对等理论的科学主义的、以原文为中心(在等效理论中还以原文读者为指向)的价值诉求违背了艺术创造的根本原则,因而注定了它在文学翻译中不适用。
As a central concept in the linguistic school of translation theory in the West, equivalence has been influential for over 2000 years, and its impact on translation studies culminated in the second half of the 20th century along with the booming development of this school of learning. Early theorists on equivalence give priority to the absolute loyalty to the original author, proposing a type of source-oriented equivalence in terms of form, content and style. Drawing on Systemic-Functional Linguistics, Catford in the 1960s makes detailed classifications of equivalent relations in translation and describes them in a systematic way. Guided by the Marxist point of view of language, scholars of the former USSR like Fedovov, Barkhudarov, ?vejcer and Komissarov concerned themselves largely with the hierarchies of equivalence and translation units, and engaged themselves in a hot argument with translation theorists of the artistic school. Taking communication theory and reception aesthetics as his theoretical basis, Nida puts forth dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence which marks a breakthrough from the source-orientation of earlier concepts of equivalence. His emphasis on the equivalence of pragmatic effect pushes equivalence a big step forward. Three types of equivalent relations can be distinguished when language is seen from a tri-dimensional perspective-semantic equivalence, formal equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. Studies on equivalence at text level include not only comparison of cohesive devices of a language pair, but also exploration into the pragmatic effects produced by means of various pragmatic factors (coherence, relevance, intentionality, etc.). Nevertheless, classification and description of various equivalent relations as we may do, the concept of equivalence is bound to incur a great deal of censure. For one thing, the theory of translation equivalence is not watertight in that equivalence (no matter on what level) between entities of two languages is relative due to the heterogeneity of different languages. Secondly, the necessity and possibility of equivalence to be achieved in translation have a direct bearing on purpose of the
    
    translation activity concerned. And lastly, the appeal for a scientific, source-centered value places equivalence in a position against artistic creation in literary translation, resulting in its failure of commission to serve as a guideline for such type of translation.
引文
Austin, J. L. How To Do Things With Words [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1962.
    Baker, Mona. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation [M]. London: Taylor & Francis, 1992.
    Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
    Beaugrande, R. de & W. Dressler. Introduction to Textlinguistics [M]. London: Longman, 1981.
    Brown, G. & G. Yule. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
    Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
    Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
    Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman, 1976.
    
    
    Hatim, Basil & I. Mason. Discourse and the Translator [M]. London: Longman, 1990.
    Hickey, Leo (Edited). The Pragmatics of Translation [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1998.
    Hoey, Michael M. P. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. London: Longman, 1991.
    Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
    Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation [M]. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.
    Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation [M]. London: Prentice Hall, 1988.
    Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating [M]. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964.
    Nida, Eugene A. & Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969.
    Nida, Eugene A. Language and Culture ― Contexts in Translating [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
    Nord, Christiane. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997.
    Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach, revised edition [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.
    Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
    Wilss, W. The Science of Translation [M]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen, 1982.
    陈福康,2000,《中国译学理论史稿》[编]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
    陈宏薇,1998,《汉英翻译基础》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
    蔡毅,1995,国外翻译理论的三大核心概念——翻译的实质、可译性和等值。《中国翻译》,第6期。
    蔡毅、段京华,2000,《苏联翻译理论》[编译]。武汉:湖北教育出版社。
    郭建中,1986,论西方的翻译对等概念。《中国翻译》,第5期。
    郭建中,2000,《文化与翻译》[编]。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
    郭建中,2000,《当代美国翻译理论》[编译]。武汉:湖北教育出版社。
    何自然,1997,《语用学与英语学习》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
    黄国文,1988,《语篇分析概要》。长沙:湖南教育出版社。
    
    
    黄南松,1997,省略和语篇。《语文研究》,第1期。
    胡壮麟,1994,《语篇的衔接与连贯》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
    柯平,1993,《英汉与汉英翻译教程》。北京:北京大学出版社。
    李运兴,2001,《语篇翻译引论》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
    廖七一,1994,也谈西方翻译理论中的等值论。《中国翻译》,第5期。
    廖七一,2001,《当代英国翻译理论》[编译]。武汉:湖北教育出版社。
    廖七一,2000,《当代西方翻译理论探索》[编]。南京:译林出版社。
    连淑能,1993,《英汉对比研究》。北京:高等教育出版社。
    刘宓庆,1999,《当代翻译理论》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
    刘宓庆,2001,《翻译与语言哲学》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
    刘影、陈垣光,2002,文化交汇,丰采灿然——喜读《阿Q正传》莱尔英译本。《中国翻译》,第4期.
    吕俊,1998,翻译:从文本出发——对等效翻译论的反思。《外国语》,第3期。
    吕俊、侯向群,2001,《英汉翻译教程》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
    潘文国,1997,《汉英语对比纲要》。北京:北京语言文化大学出版社。
    钱冠连,1997,翻译的语用观。《现代外语》,第1期。
    钱瑗,1997,对COLLOCATION的再认识。《外语教学与研究》,第3期。
    申丹,1997,论翻译中的形式对等。《外语教学与研究》,第2期。
    谭载喜,1991,《西方翻译简史》。北京:商务印书馆。
    王东风,1998,语篇连贯与翻译初探。《外语与外语教学》,第6期。
    谢天振,1999,《译介学》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
    熊沐清、刘霞敏,1999,从连贯的条件看几种连贯理论。《外国语》,第3期。
    杨喜娥,1999,语用等值与翻译。《天津外国语学院学报》,第3期。
    杨忠、李清和,1995,意·义·译——议等值翻译的层次性和相对性。《中国翻译》,第5期。
    杨自俭、刘学云,1994,《翻译新论》[编]。武汉:湖北教育出版社。
    张柏然、许钧,1997,《译学论集》[编]。南京:译林出版社。
    张今,1987,《文学翻译原理》。开封:河南大学出版社。
    张美芳,1999,从语境分析看动态对等论的局限性。《上海科技翻译》,第4期。
    
    
    张美芳,2001,从语篇分析的角度看翻译中的对等。《现代外语》,第1期。
    张美芳,2001,意图与语篇制作策略。《外国语》,第2期。
    朱永生、严世清,2001,《系统功能语言学多维思考》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
    朱永生、郑立信、苗兴伟,2001,《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址:北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编:100083

电话:办公室:(+86 10)66554848;文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新:66554700