|
Читайте также: |
Texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent) in respect of context, semantics, grammar etc. and at different ranks: word for word, phrase for phrase, sentence for sentence, ashes to ashes. It’s apparent that the idea of total equivalence is a chimera. Languages are different from each other, they are different in form having distinct codes and rules regulating the construction of grammatical stretches of language and these forms have different meanings. To shift from one language to another is to alter the forms. Further, the contrasting forms convey meanings which cannot but fail to coincide totally: there is no absolute synonymy between words in the same language, let alone translation. The phenomenon of translating equivalence is a major task of linguistics of translation. Most of the researches interpret equivalence as a basic characteristic and condition of translation, distinguishing it from other ways of conveying contents of a foreign language text: annotation and others.
Translation equivalence is defined as a measure of semantic similarity between source text and target text, closest possible approximation to source text units. There are different linguistic trends concerning the problem of equivalence which is a kingpin of translation theory. So Egher thinks that the task of translation is to achieve communicative equivalence of the original, that is to retain communicative significance of the source text. According to Egher, part of the original text can and must be retained in translation, which involves 1) actual significative meaning of the text (presented by semantic and syntactic meanings of the signs actualized in a sentence); 2) actual partitioning of sentences (rheme extraction); 3) interlinguistic pragmatic meanings providing for stylistic nature of science (emotional, aesthetic and estimating). If all these components of text contents coincide in the original and translation, this translation can be considered equivalent. But this linguistic trend is very prolific for further development of semasiology, but it doesn’t give possible solution to the problem of translation equivalence. Eugene Nida distinguishes formal equivalence (closest possible match of form and content between source text and target text) and dynamic equivalence (principle of equivalence of effect on reader of target text) as basic orientations. Formal equivalence is of course appropriate in certain circumstances: at crucial points, in diplomatic negotiations interpreters may need to translate exactly what is said rather than assume responsibility for reinterpreting the sense and formulating it in such a way as to achieve what they judge to be equivalence of effect. Formal equivalence is, in other words, a means of providing some degree of insight into the lexical, grammatical or structural form of a source text. But the theory has serious drawbacks: copying grammatical and lexical units very often leads to the violation of the norms of the target language. Nida claims that the present direction is toward increasing emphasis on dynamic equivalence which has a different orientation; translation isn’t preoccupied with the coincidence of message in source language with that of the target language; its main task is the achievement of equivalence of reader’s response. The idea of dynamic equivalence seems to be contradictory: the need for maximum proximity and naturality of translation doesn’t agree with the necessity to bring about a definite type of receiver’s behavior.
A certain presumption of equivalence is built in the mechanism of translation. Such a presumption is based on factual proximity of the content of the original and translation, but its degree in any specific case is determined by a number of objective and subjective factors, and can’t be equal and given for all translations.
Дата добавления: 2015-04-12; просмотров: 232 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |