Translation Equivalence 翻译对等理论

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.

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

filed

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 difficult 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 can not 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

?

s

expected

that

their

studies

can

instruct

GNT study in China and provide translators with insightful methods.

Eugene Nida

Eugene

A.

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?s a replacement of textual material in one language

〔

SL< /p>

〕

by equivalent

textual

material

in

another

langua ge

〔

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