[转载]翻译的悖论
翻译的悖论
是美国当代著名翻译理论家尤金o耐达有关翻译的一段论述，文字十分生动而精辟，
值得一读。
Paradoxes of Translating
By Eugene A. Nida
Translating is a complex and fascinating task. In fact, I. A.
Richards has claimed that it is probably the most complex type of
event in the history of the cosmos. And yet, translating is so
natural and easy that children seem to have no difficulty in
interpreting for their immigrant parents. These children normally
do very well until they have gone to school and have learned about
nouns, verbs, and adverbs. Then they often seem tongue-tied because
they try to match the words and grammar rather than the
&& Because of experience in
learning a foreign language in school, most persons assume that
literalness in translating means faithfulness to the text, even
though close, literal renderings are often seriously misleading. In
English, for example, the repetition of a word usually implies
emphasis, but not in Bahasa Indonesia, where repetition only
signals plurality. In the Quechua dialect of Bolivia the suffix
-runa marks the preceding noun as plural, but in conversation
Quecbua speakers use the suffix only at the beginning of a section
and do not constantly repeat it, as is the case with the plural
suffix in Spanish. Accordingly, a literal translation which
represents every plural -s in Spanish by the Quechua suffix -runa
is regarded by Quechua speakers as being not only strange but even
an insult to the intelligence of hearers.
&&& Because of
the many discrepancies between meanings and structures of different
languages, some persons have insisted that translating is
impossible, and yet more and more translating is done and done
well. Those who insist that translating is impossible are usually
concerned with some of the more marginal features of figurative
language and complex poetic structures. The use of figurative
language is universal, but the precise figures of speech in one
language rarely match those in another.
&&& It is true
that in some languages one cannot say "My God", because native
speakers insist that no one can "possess" God, but a person can
speak about "the God I worship" or "the God to whom I belong."
Translating is simply doing the impossible well, regardless of the
objections of such famous authors as Goethe and Schleiemacher, who
insisted that translating is impossible and yet did not hesitate to
have their own writings translated.
&&& Another
paradox of translating is reflected in the contention that
translating is valid but paraphrase is wrong. In fact, all
translating involves differing degrees of paraphrase, since there
is no way in which one can successfully translate word for word and
structure for structure. In Spanish me fui is literally 'I went
myself,' in which me is a so-called reflexive pronoun, but this
Spanish phrase can often be best translated into English as 'I left
right away' or 'I got away quickly.' In English, as well as in most
other European languages, one speaks of the 'heart' as being the
center of emotions, but in many languages in West Africa a person
'loves with the liver' and in some of the indigenous languages of
Central America people talk about 'loving with the stomach.' Since
languages do not differ essentially in what they can say, but in
how they say it, paraphrase is inevitable. What is important is the
semantic legitimacy of the paraphrase.
&&& A further
paradox occurs in the widespread view that a translator should
first produce a more or less literal rendering of the source text
and then proceed to improve it stylistically. Style, however, is
not the frosting on the cake, but an integral part of the process
of interlingual communication. It must be built into the text right
from the beginning. It is usually better to aim first at a
stylistically satisfactory rendering of the source text and then
review it carefully to "tighten it up" by analyzing and testing the
correspondences. A few errors in the correspondences of lexical
meaning are much more excusable than missing the spirit and
aesthetic character of the source text.
translating is a skill which generally requires considerable
practice, most people assume that it can be taught, and to an
extent this is true. But it is also true that really exceptional
translators are born, not made. Potential translators must have a
high level of aptitude for the creative use of language, or they
are not likely to be outstanding in their profession. Perhaps the
greatest benefit from instruction in translating is to become aware
of one's own limitations, something which a translator of
Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men into Chinese should have learned. Then
he would not have translated English mule-skinner into a Chinese
phrase meaning 'a person who skins the hide off of mules.'
&&& For many
people the need for human translators seems paradoxical in this age
of computers. Since modern computers can be loaded with
dictionaries and grammars, why not let computers do the work?
Computers can perform certain very simple interlingual tasks,
providing there is sufficient pre-editing and post-editing. But
neither advertising brochures nor lyric poetry can ever be reduced
to the kind of logic required for computer programs. Computer
printouts of translations can often be understood, if the persons
involved already know what the text is supposed to say. But the
results of machine translating are usually in an unnatural form of
language and sometimes just plain weird. Furthermore, real
improvements will not come from merely doctoring the program or
adding rules. The human brain is not only digital and analogic, but
it also has a built-in system of values which gives it a
componentially incalculable advantage over machines. Human
translators will always be necessary for any text which is
stylistically appealing and semantically complex - which includes
most of what is worth communicating in another language.
&&& The most
difficult texts to translate are not, however, highly literary
productions, but rather those texts which say nothing, the type of
language often used by politicians and delegates to international
forums. In fact, a group of professional translators at the United
Nations headquarters in New York City have insisted that the most
difficult text to translate is one in which the speaker or writer
has attempted to say nothing. The next most difficult type of text
is one filled with irony or sarcasm, since in a written text the
paralinguistic clues to the meaning are usually much more difficult
to detect than when someone is speaking. And perhaps the third most
difficult type of text is a book or article on translating in which
the illustrative examples rarely match. In fact, a book on
translating almost always requires extensive adaptation.
One of the most surprising paradoxes of translating is that there
is never a completely perfect or timeless translation. Both
language and culture are always in the process of change.
Furthermore, language is an open system with overlapping meanings
and fuzzy boundaries - the bane of logicians but the delight of
poets. The indeterminacy of language is part of the price that must
be paid for creativity and for the new insights which come through
symbolic reinterpretation of human experience.
Some people imagine that the greatest problem in translating is to
find the right words and constructions in the receptor or target
language. On the contrary, the most difficult task for the
translator is to understand thoroughly the designative and
associative meanings of the text to be translated. This involves
not only knowing the meanings of the words and the syntactic
relations, but also being sensitive to all the nuances of the
stylistic devices. As one struggling translator summed up his
problems, "If I really understood what the text means, I could
easily translate it."
&&& Perhaps the
least understood paradox of translating is the general assumption
that a person who knows two languages well can be a good translator
or interpreter. In the first place, knowing two languages is not
enough. It is also essential to be acquainted with the respective
cultures - one of the important reasons for the title of this book
Language, Culture, and Translating. Persons may be able to speak
two languages perfectly but not have the capacity to write well,
which means they can never become skilled translators. Moreover,
merely speaking two languages in a competent manner does not mean
that persons can become first-rate interpreters, whether in
consecutive or simultaneous circumstances. In addition to knowing a
language, an interpreter must have a quick mind to organize and
formulate a response. The test for potential interpreters at the
Maurice Thorez Institute in Moscow involves an assigned topic, one
minute to prepare a short speech on the topic, and one minute to
&&& The least
understood paradox of language is the parallax of language, that
is, the fact that language not only represents reality but also
distorts it. For example, people use the terms sunset and sunrise
when they know full well that the sun does not actually set or
rise, but that it is the world which is rotating. Similarly, people
call certain large-eared seals sea lions, although they are in no
sense lions. Even when a word is wrongly understood, many persons
tend to give it credence. For example, people still cite the adage.
The exception proves the rule as a means of justifying exceptions,
when proves should be understood only in the sense of
"testing."
&&& Some people
think of a language as being a picture or map of reality, and they
seldom take the time to realize that pictures and maps inevitably
involve selectivity and distortion. Both pictures and maps suffer
from parallax, but people generally get used to such skewing of
reality and even have special devices for calculating the errors in
maps and photographs of the earth's surface. Unfortunately, they
often do not recognize the parallax in language, and they accept
verbal formulations as being absolute truths. They talk about the
Holy Roman Empire, when in reality it was not holy or Roman or an
empire. More recently there was the German Democratic Republic,
which from the viewpoint of democracies in the West was neither
democratic nor a republic in the generally accepted meanings of
these terms. Some people no longer speak about agreements being
they simply use the word inoperative. And armies are no
longer they just regroup. Similarly, stock
ma they merely consolidate.
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。翻译观视角解析
编辑: 文文网 |
来源: 文文网 |
已录字数: 3171字 |
文章收费: 免费
（1964）认为翻译是目标语中再现的源文本信息，语言要自然、对等。威尔斯进一步指出“对等”不能机械地一一对应，而是基于转换情境对文本的需求，文本要迎合情境调整结构和文字。对等不应该是语言形式对等，而是信息对等（J&&&&
cobsen,E.1958）。然而“信息不等”这一提法也不够清晰，没有说明哪一个层面上的信息，是语义信息还是功能信息。正因如此，随后的学者把翻译定义二分为“语义翻译”和“交际翻译”。随着语言学研究的深入发展，语用学、社会语言学、语篇学等新的语言学研究分支不断涌现，尤其韩礼德的系统功能语言学的流行，翻译文本的功能和交际目的成为研究热点。翻译行为不但是语言行为也是文化行为，确切地说是跨文化行为，受源语文化语境和译语交际文化语境的双重制约。House（2009）在其经典指南性著作《翻译》中总结介绍主要翻译观，包括以原文为重心、以翻译过程为中心、以意识形态、文化、字面意义等变量为关注点、对源文本进行重构以及以翻译目的为重心等翻译视角。下文对此展开讨论。&&&&
一、源文本观&&&&
以源文本为重心的翻译观关注源文本，将其与译文进行语言对比，与对比语言学相关。不同的是，对比语言学的兴趣点是语言内和跨语言的同类词汇范畴的对等，翻译更关注文本对等以及在交际实践中语言和语言成分的使用。对于翻译来说，用&&&&
语言创作的文本如何用B语言表达更为切合实际需要。当然，翻译可以参考对比语言学的研究结果，很多翻译难题都和跨语言差别有关。例如：英语的时态有形式变化，汉语没有类似标记，“Ih&&&&
vegotit”的汉译是“我已经拿到了”。从语言对比角度讲，英语中表过去时态的曲折语素与汉语粘着语素“了”相对，而标语态的助动词“h&&&&
ve”则无汉语同类功能词对应，只能由副词“已经”表达。&&&&
语言功能观对于翻译更具指导意义。把语言置于社交情景，观察语言、情景和文化的交织作用。韩礼德的功能语言学认为语言形式和功能有系统关联，语言形式是语言社会功能的语义编码。系统功能语言学为语义学增添了新的视角，为译者提供了新的思索角度。句子不是形式对象而是信息，交换和表征。不过，系统功能语言学视角还是停留在小句层面，不描述和解释文本中的语言实现功能的方式。而文本是翻译的关注对象,文本置于语境之中，要从使用规范和语旨层面考察。&&&&
Ctford（1965）认为意义不是从源文本转换成译文，而是被译文所替代，因而意义在新语境和上下文中起相对功能。换言之，语言单位的功能要被置于其功能可行使的语境中，意义才可以被替换。意义转移（tr&&&&
nsference）指源文本中的意义被提出然后在译文中被赋予新的词汇表达，例如：“Ple&&&&
selooktme”与译文“请看我”；替换（replcement）指文本和语境之间功能所产生的意义由另一语言中的同类功能所替换，例如：“Hello”与汉译“你好！”。Ctford（1965）区分了翻译中的形式对应和文本对等。前者是语言系统的问题；后者是语言系统的实现。形式对应指两个语言体系中都存在的项目，例如英语中的“&&&&
nd”和汉语中的“和”意义和用法都相类似。翻译实践中这种形式对应可遇不可求，大多数时候译者需要进行翻译转换处理，例如英语中的表完成体的助动词翻译成汉语时要变成副词。&&&&
Nid（1964）的翻译社会语言学观认为翻译是接受者指向的，他对比和解释了源语言受众和目标语受众对译文的不同理解和期待，这种差别来源于其自身的世界知识和标准。翻译要使源文本适用于不同的语言和文化传统。Nid&&&&
（1964）理论源自其长期翻译《圣经》的实践经验，他认为只有使其适用和适应目标受众，翻译的目的才能达成。耐达制定了两个翻译标准：形式对等和动态对等。形式对等要求译文中的语言形式要尽可能地与源语言形式匹配；动态对等要求译文自然完整。Nid&&&&
（1964）翻译理论的程序基于早期的转换生成语法形式。翻译有三个阶段：分析、转换和重构。转换在翻译中重新概念化为“改写”。译者分析表层结构的句子生成“核心句”（kernelsentence），进而转换成为类似的目标语结构，重构后融入目标文本。源语言句子按语法关系、词义以及二者结合的关系进行分析，由甲语言到乙转换到译者的大脑中，转换的材料进行重组然后变成乙语言完全接受的信息。二、翻译过程观&&&&
关注翻译过程，把注意力从翻译产品上转到人类的翻译过程上，同时关注读者和读者的认知和情感活动。这种翻译观把视点从文本语义转到文本解读。读者如何解读文本，这与读者的主观理解能力、个人背景和经历、语境知识及其主观能动性有关。Nid&&&&
（1964）翻译理论虽然尊重读者，力求文本适应读者，但决不舍弃源文本及其核心。源文本自己没有生命力，要通过翻译过程赋予生命力。通过接受源文，译者进行循环反复学习，即译者与文本的“界限溶解”过程。译者通过接触消化源文本，逐渐适应，消除其异域特征，建立新的心理表征，通过重构输出为译文。这不是将源文本本身转化为其他语言，而是输出译者的心理表征。译者主观性非常强，他是源文本的解读者、新文本的构建者，读者读到的实际上是译者对源文本的理解而非源文本的转换。在这种观点下，不存在错误的译文，因为只能有错误的理解。这样对译文的评价就会直接转到译者批判方向。&&&&
三、变量翻译观&&&&
这种观点认为翻译并不是简单的甲语言和乙语言的转换或替换，有一些变量会影响翻译过程甚至文本。这里所指的变量主要是一些文化元素，依存文化假设。人类总是透过文化的有色眼镜看待现实，我们以我们解读文本的方式解读，所得意义是我们认为真实或现实的意义，而非文本自身固有的真实意义。源文本的意义由译者决定，通过译文存在于目的语文化中。传统观点认为源文本的意义权威源自其作者，所以其意义稳定，但是变量翻译观和过程翻译观挑战甚至推翻了源文的意义权威。译者被赋予处 &&&&
理源文的权利，甚至鼓励其对源文进行再创造。源文中不符合目的语意识形态、文化或者文字习惯的内容可以被改写或删节，源文本作者只能望洋兴叹。希拉里•克林顿就曾经抗议过其传记的中译本删减了大量内容。最极致的例子是译者对源文本进行解构性创造，每个译本都是对源文本的再创造。译者是否真有权进行这种“重写”或“再造”一直是争论的焦点。&&&&
四、翻译目的观&&&&
关注翻译目的而非源文本本身与关注目的语文化适应性一样否定源文本的意义权威性。很多商业性质的翻译都以营销为目的，吸引顾客眼球，创造良好企业形象，提升产品形象。电影名称翻译方面的研究贡献了很多这类例子：“Chrlie’sngles”译为“霹雳娃”、“Mtrix”译为“骇客帝国”、“PrettyWomn”译为“风月俏佳人”。以上译文基本都没有采取源文本，第一部电影的直译应该是“查理的天使”，但是从商业角度这一名字不够吸引眼球，该片以动作武打和美女为卖点，直译的片名不够火爆，而“霹雳娇娃”暗示出电影的内容和品位。比较离谱的翻译是“Mtrix”，英文意思是“矩阵”，作为电影名“矩阵”确实卖点不高，好莱坞之所以保留这一电影名是因为这部电影改编自同名小说，而该小说在美国已经很流行了。考虑到中国电影观众可能没有看过该小说，“骇客帝国”更加接近发片商的要求。这种与源文本完全不相干的译文到底还是不是翻译？在大家为“可口可乐”这一译文拍案叫绝时到底置源文“cococol”于何处？这种操作更像是用另一语言起了另一个名字，源文的作用顶多就是提供了点儿参考信息。目的观最适用于商业领域，源文为商业目的服务，源文作者也不像文学作家那样以审美、传播思想为创作目的，对源文掌控的程度和掌控愿望都不高，从这点来讲，功能确实是源文和译文的共同目标。&&&&
结束语&&&&
翻译是这样一个复杂的问题，我们必须以尽量丰富的视角去看待和研究。随着翻译研究的发展，语言学翻译视角也开始扩大视域，从只关注词汇、语法层面扩大到考虑语言的功能和语用方面。实际上，翻译与语用近年来已经成为比较炙手可热的研究课题。同时，极端的、实验性的翻译观及其翻译实践也开始反思，呈现出归传统的趋势。&&&&
轻松获得金币:
如何获得库币:
文文数据库丨专业原创
合作伙伴：万方数据.中国知网.维普资讯.龙源期刊网
文章总数: 3202篇 |
会员总数: 522 人
| 文文网电子邮件： 电话：027- 文文网热线：
广告咨询QQ:
Copyright @ 2012 - 2015
All Rights Reserved
文文数据库 鄂ICP备号-1英语翻译对于 “汉语隐喻的翻译方法” 这个论文题目 要怎么展开啊?大概要从哪些方面写?分哪些点?_百度作业帮
英语翻译对于 “汉语隐喻的翻译方法” 这个论文题目 要怎么展开啊?大概要从哪些方面写?分哪些点?
先介绍什么是汉语隐喻,隐喻翻译的重要性,再写文献,看到目前为止,前人研究的成果,在此基础上你提一个新的观点,比如：在隐喻翻译中可以引入尤金耐达的功能对等理论（或其他人的理论）,然后从汉语中找出大量的隐喻例子,然后套用这个理论下的具体翻译方法来翻译这些例子,最后写个总结,结论：功能对等理论下的某些具体方法不失为较好的汉语隐喻翻译方法.
其他类似问题
扫描下载二维码}