Translation equivalence theories “is the core concept of translation theory in the West. The ultimate goal of translation equivalence and translation activities. Through the analysis of the theory in this article, using specific examples explore the surface of literal translation, free translation in deep and pragmatic translation equivalence of the level of rhetoric.
First, the theory of translation equivalence
Translation of “equivalence” or “reciprocal” (equivalence) as a translation, is one of the core concepts of modern translation studies. It is a major concern language school thinking, many Western translation theorist when explaining their own translation theory advocated, tend to be separated from the discussion on the translation equivalence. “Equivalent” is the center of almost all modern theory in the writings of the term. Nearly twenty or thirty years, with the introduction of Western translation theories, Chinese scholars on translation equivalence study also unusually active. Introduced the concept of equivalence in translation studies, greatly promoted the development of translation studies, has reinforced awareness of the translation, and guidance in part on a translation. Modern was first explicitly proposed equivalent translation theory of Linguistics of the Soviet representatives in the summary of the theory of translation, a.v. Fedorov, he proposed a “translation equivalence” theory: “translation is in one language to another language in the integral unity of content and form have already expressed in accurately and completely as express”. He can establish the exact equivalence between the translation with the original relationship. Translation equivalence “is completely accurate and on the role of the ideological content of the original expression, rhetoric and on exactly”. Equivalence concept itself because of its ambiguous and has been the focus of scholars argue. In other words—on behalf of the translation, Baker pointed out in the introduction of “this book uses the term equiva2lence is a convenience—because most of the translators have used this term, and not because it has the status of any theory. Usage of the term equivalence here also has the following restrictions: Although the equivalent to a certain extent, usually to achieve, but under the influence of various linguistic and cultural factors, it is always relative. ” Translation equivalence is also discussed in this article follow the principle of relative equivalent. Supporters of equivalent translation theory is usually “equivalent” is defined as “the relationship between the source language and target text, which makes the destination text is seen as the translation of source text immediately. “Jacobsen in its linguistic problems in translation, made clear in the article” the equivalent of difference “, from here we can see emphasis in linguistics of translation equivalence is not the absolute symmetry, but as noted in Firth, equivalence of translation theory in the introduction, is to use it as a normal vocabulary of vague meaning. As in Wales, of the problems and methods of translation-points out, due to the subjectivity of the translator is inevitable, the difference between the complexity of the text and the recipient, towards equivalence of translation at the same time, inevitable loss, fully equivalent is difficult to achieve. Therefore we can said on equivalent concept of understanding in the should contains was on “equivalent of” of consider, despite equivalent concept has fuzzy sexual, in translation process in the pursuit Supreme of “equivalent of” should is each translator pursuit of target, because objective or translator subjective Shang of causes caused of source language this and target text in some aspects not equivalent, in must degree Shang is can accept of. The same information, two different sets of languages, recipients of different, but produce the same effect, this is the main principle of translation equivalence.
Second, the theory of translation equivalence
Equivalent translation theory emphasized the expression should be reached on equivalence translation and the original results, meet the requirements of the language itself. In the process we can through a literal translation, free translation and other methods to achieve the equivalent translation, exchanges between the two languages. Literal translation and free translation is essentially built on the language is divided into two levels (semantics, and language identifier layer, that is deep and surface) on the basis of. Emphasis on deep semantic equivalence is a free translation; stressed that breaks the surface language equivalent is a literal translation. But the language is the objective reality of the semantic layer between characters and words, pragmatic layers also exist, namely in a generalized rhetoric between the deep layer on the surface there. Rhetorical intent is based on the context and language requirements, personality characteristics of input words (including style and style) to achieve the level of actual best results. Equivalence principle is based on the language is divided into surface structure and deep structure and rhetorical level on the basis of these three levels.
Surface achieved from the third, the literal translation of translation equivalence
Literal translation, is at the lower levels of the translation, language referring to a translation as possible to keep the original form, including words, sentence structures, means and so on, also require fluency, and understandable. Different nations have different cultures, there will always be the same or similarities between each other. Reflected in the language of culture, there will be some correspondence between phenomena. As we all know, love is an eternal topic, people love using image manipulation performance. In English-Chinese bilingual “rose” represent love, when in the translation of such work, translators easier to use literal method to achieve the equivalent translation. United Kingdom love poems of the poet Robert Burns, “Red Red Rose” two sentences “Till a ‘ the seasgang dry” “And the rocks melt Wi ‘ the Sun” and Chinese “forevermore” almost entirely equivalent. And if “following him, marry a dog with dog” (cockand follows the cock a, Marry, marry a dog and follows the dog), the surface of the original meaning is simple: marry a chicken with chicken, marrying a dog with dog. But deep meaning is very rich, it profoundly reflects the feudal and patriarchal marriage view of thought in ancient China. Language humor humour of the original, profound and dignified. Translations are also a few words, only a cock, dog, marry, follow the four substantive, collocation and perfect of the original. Both cases are reached through the literal translation of translation equivalence.
Four, paraphrasing the deep reaches of translation equivalence
Paraphrasing from the significance, and only requires the gist of the original expression, no attention to detail, asked a natural flow, paraphrasing no attention to the original form, but free does not mean that the original text can be freely modified. Paraphrasing is on a higher level of translation-Sir, the General sentences and sentences more translation units. It often translated an entire sentence or even paragraph as a whole, regardless of the words.
For example, in traditional Chinese culture, ox is a symbol of hard work, has long naturally formed the love and praise for cattle; and China, United Kingdom mainly on horses in ancient farming, cattle and rarely worked, so the horse in British and American culture, is a symbol of hard work and suffering. So the Chinese saying “big as a cow”, according to the figures ‘ of the English nation, English says that “as strong as a horse”; a Chinese “work like a horse,” “, like cattle, and hardworking, English:” work like a horse “. Another example of “people of God disposes, materialised in heaven”, English: “Man proposes, God disposes.” Method of translation is a free translation of the equivalent amount. Under the influence of Buddhism in China is relatively dark, “Heaven”, under the influence of Christianity in the West believe that “God”. Two different connotation, in the hearts of the Chinese people’s “day” with the hearts of Westerners “God” in the language is functionally equivalent. Also, Anger is only one letter short of danger. This idiom is more like the Chinese “a knife in the heart-prefix” if not “forbearance”, “heart” was “Blade”, and how dangerous it is! English is also playing word games: front as long as the anger coupled with a “d” is danger! If a literal translation into “angry only one step away from danger”, the word game show out of the original sentence, it is not up to translation equivalence. So in such a case the translator will need through the translation target language translation as much as possible close to the source of the cultural background and habits to achieve the translation equivalence.
Five, pragmatic rhetoric reached translation equivalence
Translation equivalence proposition, as we cannot be found in the translation language and fully equivalent expression of the original, we can only seek the translation language to play a similar role, pragmatic functions that produce roughly the equivalent to convey in the form of source information. We all know, generally appeared in the form of rhetoric, as a symbolic system, rhetoric was recognized by readers in the form of the language of the original, the rhetorical style of copy should be able to target readers ‘ understanding of nature, to recognize a copy of the style, it must conform to the translation expression of language habits. This is also the translation of pragmatic rhetoric to achieve specific formulation of equivalent value.
Such as white as snow (as white as snow) cannot was exotic culture in the of readers identity and understanding Shi, on appears has NIDA so-called of “zero bit information”, then if also in accordance with the literally literal translation, asked is will became no significance, also on impossible expect asked readers from asked in the get what information or feel has, are so-called “meaning of not save, taste will Yan report”. What about the how to solve this problem? May we can turned to asked readers by known of image expression, as ‘ white as cream ‘ (if he know ‘ cream ‘ for what words); or seeking translation into language in the most approximate of habits expression, as ‘ white as Egret hair ‘, and ‘ white as mushroom ‘,, despite its sources not as, but its extension significance and figurative meanings may is same or similar of; or we also can with imagine, seeking “peer” of expression, as can translation into ‘ white as salt ‘, and ‘ white as flour ‘ and so on; if fundamental on found not to this class approximate of figurative expression, we may also can select abandoned original in the of image, used bluntly of non-figurative of saying. The idea of “drew on aesthetics, stressed that accepts subjectivity, creativity, and highlighted the needs of the recipient and regulation mechanism of aesthetic consciousness on works of art” (Liu Mi Kyung, 1989), so that pragmatic rhetoric reached the equivalent.
VI concluding remarks
Translation equivalence is a core problem in translation theory, translation profession has been defined, the value and role of debating, no consensus. The reason, as it relates to the nature of translation, evaluation standards, the principles of translation practice and other fundamental issues. Therefore, ALEXA, understanding connotation of translation equivalence, so as to determine the translation of scientific standards, on improving the development of translation theory and practice of translation of important theoretical significance and practical significance. Translation equivalence is one of the core concept of translation studies, follow the principle of equivalence in the translation process, full use of the surface layer of literal translation, free translation, and other methods to achieve deep and pragmatic rhetorical dimensions of translation equivalence, the asked information provided to the reader and the original information that the readers reach the closest natural equivalence.
(1) Baker. In other words: translation (m). Beijing: foreign language teaching and research press, 2000.
(2) Cao Minxiang. On translation equivalence (j). Chinese translation, 1998, (2): 25-28.
(3) Fan Zhongying. Practical course in translation (m). Beijing: foreign language teaching and research press, 1994.
(4) a.v. Fedorov. Summary of the theory of translation (m). Zhonghuashuju, 1955.
(5) Guo Jianzhong. Contemporary United States translation theory (m). Hubei education press, 2000.
(6) Liu Mi Kyung. On the basic model of translation theory in China (j). Chinese translation, 1989, (1): 12-15.
(7) Liu Mi Kyung. Style and translation (m). Beijing: China translation publishing company, 1985. (8), Wales. Problems and methods of translation-(m). Beijing: China translation publishing company, 1988.
(9) Zhang Nanfeng. China from the reception of NIDA’s principles of equivalent translation theory in the study of value judgment (j). Foreign languages, 1999, (5): 44-51.