|
|
第四部分 翻译流派
1. 解构主义学派概述：
解构主义是二十世纪六十年代末自法国兴盛起来的一股颇为引人注目的后现代主义思潮。它发端于哲学,其影响却渗入到了社会生活的各个层面。解构主义是在对结构主义的批判中建立起来的,以消解性为主要特征,系统地解构了结构主义关于结构和意义等重要概念,故名曰“解构主义”。解构主义的重要代表人物有雅克•德里达(Jacques Derrida)、麦克•福柯(Michel Foucault)等,在翻译界的代表则有劳伦斯•韦努蒂(Lawrence Venuti)等。其中,雅克•德里达是提出解构主义的第一人,因此被称为“解构主义之父”,劳伦斯•韦努蒂作为翻译理论家和实践家,积极地著书立说,以实际行动极大地推动了解构主义翻译理论体系的确立和发展。 二十世纪伴随着哲学和文学领域的变革,翻译研究也不断出现新的转向,如语言学转向、文化转向等等,翻译研究被置身于一个更大的背景之下,从而得到了迅速的发展。
The profile of Deconstructionism Deconstruction is a post-structuralism trend of thought which inaugurated in the late 1960s in France. It originates in philosophy but penetrates into every aspect of our social life. It originates in Jacques Derrida, who was often called the“the father of deconstruction”. Lawrence Venuti as an important representative, studies and develops this theory in the field of translation, and he published several books on the topic providing many deconstructive theory and strategies. In the 20th century, with the occurrence of different theories involved in philosophical and literary fields, translation studies also undergoes linguistic turn and cultural turn.
II.解构主义翻译观的主要论点:此翻译观是以德里达、本雅明和韦努蒂为代表的解构主义学者从哲学、语言及文化等方面对翻译所进行的论述,其主要内容为:
1、语言符号所表达的意义不在于语言符号本身,而在于该语言符号与其他者的差异关系之中。由于构成该语言符号的他者是无限多样的,因而该语言符号的意义也就是无限多样、无法确立的,而且这种差异关系不是静止、封闭的,而是运动、开放的,处于无限撒播和延衍状态,因而语言符号的意义也总是流变不居、难以把握的。以此看待以转换原文意义为根本目的翻译活动,解构主义翻译观认为:原文的意义已不在原文本身,而在与其他者所构成的差异关系中,所以,转换原文意义的说法便不成立,传统观念中的翻译便成为一种不可能;既然翻译原文意义都已成为不可能之事,那么,再谈翻译过程中译者要忠实于原文也就显得毫无意义,传统翻译理论所强调的“忠实观”也就难以成立;
2、世界是一个被语言符号化了的文本的世界,如德里达所说“一切皆文本”、“文本之外无物”,故原文作者进行的创作实际上也就是对一个个现存的有形或无形文本的翻拍或改写,原初意义上的所谓原创性创作是不存在的,一切文本都是互文本,都是对其他文本的改写。以此看待翻译中原文与译文、原作者和译者的关系,解构主义翻译观认为:既然原初性创作根本就不存在,一切皆改写,那么,译者所做就同原作者所做一样,都是对现有文本的改写,二者的地位自然就当一视同仁,译文也就而不应再被视作是原文的附属品,更有甚者,原文要想在新的语言环境中获得它的“来世”生命,得到继续传播,还必须借助译文,从这个意义上讲,原文和译文的关系不是前者决定后者,而应是相反,译文和译者的地位甚至应高过原文和原作者;
3、既然语言符号所表达的意义不在于语言符号本身,而在于与其他者所构成的差异关系中,那么,翻译研究的重点就不应在语言符号本身,而应在与其构成差异关系的他者上,所以,解构主义翻译观不再关心文本本身,而更多地留意与文本构成差异关系的他者因素,如意识形态、诗学规范、政治权力等,这样一来,翻译研究的视阈无疑被扩展了许多,而且还会无限地扩展下去;
4、对原文意义的转换既然已被证明为是一种不可能,那么,翻译中转换的,除了语言自身,别无其他。各种“语言自身”在本雅明那里是“纯语言”的碎片,在德里达那里是能指链的碎片,翻译的过程也成了碎片的拼贴过程,目的不是求同,而是存异。将这种思想引入翻译研究的文化层面,解构主义翻译观就提倡一种“异化”的翻译策略,并且认为这种策略不仅是可能的,而且是必要的,是抵抗以英美为代表的西方霸权文化的一种有效手段。
The main principle of deconstruction translation:Since 1960s, deconstruction with its thorough anti-traditional characteristics has made great impact upon the human science, first in the west, then in the whole world. The deconstruction translation theory, to speak strictly, cannot be said to be a systematic translation theory. It consists of only some ideas on translation by some deconstruction scholars who have made remarks in their theses or treatises from the perspectives of philosophy, linguistics or culture. But, since these remarks concern about some basic key points in translation such as the linguistic meaning, translatability, the criterion of translation, the relationship between the source text and the target text, between the author and the translator, and the cultural translation strategy, etc., the importance of them is self-evitable. The main content of the deconstruction translation theory can be generally summed up as:
(1) The meaning of a linguistic sign is not embodied in the sign itself, but in the relationship of differences between this sign and its others. Since the others of the linguistic sign are varied and endless, so the meaning of this sign can be varied and endless, hard to make sure of. And this relationship of differences is not static, closed but dynamic and open, always in a state of dissemination and deferring, so the meaning of a linguistic sign is fluid, impossible to grasp. With this idea of linguistic meaning, deconstruction scholars think that it’s impossible to transfer the meaning of the source text because there’s no meaning there, so translation is impossible. Thus the traditional idea of being faithful to the original in translation is meaningless. It holds no water.
(2) The object world is a linguistically signalized world of texts just as Derrida said“There is nothing outside the text.”In a world of texts everything can be regarded as a text, visible or invisible. So when an author is writing something, he is not creating something but doing the work of rewriting on the basis of existing visible or invisible texts. The so-called initially or originally creative work does not exist at all. Every text is an intertext, a rewriting of other text(s). With this idea, deconstruction scholars think that the relationships between the source text and the target text, between the original author and the translator should be re-cognized or reversed because, now that every text is just an intertext, a rewriting of other text(s) and there’s no original creation at all, what a translator does is just the same as an author. He also rewrites an existing text. So both the translator and the author should be treated equally, respected equally and enjoy the same social status. Version should not be regarded as the affiliated works to the original any more; on the contrary, if the original wants to be spread in a new linguistic environment and get its“afterlife”, it has to depend on the help of its version. From this perspective, the relationship should not be: the original decides the version but just the opposite. The status of the version or the translator should be even higher than that of the original or the author.
(3) Now that the meaning of a linguistic sign is not embodied in the sign itself, but in the relationship of differences between the sign and its others, the focus of translation studies should not be on the linguistic meaning of the text but on its others that constitute the relationship of differences with the text. So deconstruction translation theory does not pay so much attention to the text itself as to the other factors that constitute the relationship of differences with the text such as ideology, poetics and political power, etc.. Thus the fields of translation studies are widened and will be widened endlessly.
(4) Now that it has been proved that it’s impossible to transfer the meaning of the source text, what is actually transferred in translating? According to the deconstruction scholars, what is transferred in translating is no other thing but language itself. Various kinds of languages themselves refer to the fragments of“pure language”in Benjamin, and in Derrida they refer to the fragments of the signifier chain, so the process of translating become the process of fragments joining. Its purpose is not to find the identity but to preserve the differences. With this idea, when studying translation from the perspective of culture, Venuti advocates a special translation strategy in translation, namely, foreignizationHe holds the idea that it’s not only possible but also necessary to apply this kind of strategy in translation as an effective way to resist the western cultural aggression.
III.阐释学翻译概述：广义上的阐释学定义可以表述为“一门对于意义的理解和解释的理论或哲学”。阐释学对于翻译研究的关照主要表现在:理解是历史的,对文本的理解应当从历史性出发;文本意义具有开放性,允许多元阐释的存在,因此文学作品的重译具有必要性;理解者和文本都具有各自的视界,理解应将两种视界交融在一起,达到“视界融合”;译者应努力接近原作者的初始视界,从而领悟作者的本意。 乔治•斯坦纳(George Steiner)在著作《通天塔之后——语言与翻译面面观》中运用阐释学理论,提出了基于阐释学分析的四个翻译步骤:信赖(trust)、侵入(aggression)、吸收(incorporation)和补偿(restitution)。所谓“信赖”就是译者充分认识原文的价值,相信原文是有意义的;而在理解原文的意义时,译者的主观因素不可避免地“侵入”到原文中去,从而使得理解烙上了译者的影子;“侵入”的目的便是“吸收”,即把前一步骤中取得的成果移植转化到译文中去;“吸收”过程中有过也有不足,因此“补偿”十分必要,以弥补翻译过程中出现的失衡。
The profile of Hermeneutics Translation:Hermeneutics can be defined as the science and methodology of interpreting texts. It is closely linked to translation in that interpreting the source text is one of the translator"s primary tasks, and it is important for translators to understand the problems of understanding and interpreting. Several major concepts in the theory of hermeneutics have exerted great influence on translation. Hermeneutic theory insists on the historicity and temporality of interpretation. Based on such concepts, interpretation of any text should be categorized into the time system; therefore there is no absolutely "objective" understanding of a certain text. This accounts for the significance of retranslation of literary works. A translator and the source text he chooses have distinct horizons, and it is understanding that fuses the differences to reach "the fusion of horizons" through which the translator endeavors to approach the authentic world of the writer"s.In his book After Babel---Aspects of Language and Translation, George Steiner puts forward the famous hermeneutic motion of translation practice which divides translation into four stages, namely trust, aggression, incorporation and restitution. Aninitiative trust starts a translator"s job when he believes in the value of the source text. Before he actually produces specific words and sentences in the target language, the translator first functions as a reader who attacks the source text and tries to capture the meaning back, no matter how explicit or implicit the original ideas might be: this is what makes understanding aggressive. With meaning and spirit in his mind, the translator then faces the tough mission of incorporating two distinct languages, i.e. to import the meaning as well as form from another culture using the local language. A responsible translator seeks equation by making reasonable adjustments concerning the target culture and possible readers" needs.The translator"s subjectivity is involved throughout the dynamic procedure of translation.
IV.More information About Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics, briefly, can be defined as the science and methodology of interpreting texts. The philosophical background on which hermeneutics is based is demonstrated by the forerunners in this area such as Gadamer. According to Gadamer, words, that is, talk, conversation, dialogue, question and answer, produce worlds. In contrast to a traditional, Aristotelian view of language where spoken words represent mental images and written words are symbols for spoken words, Gadamerian perspective on linguistics emphasizes a fundamental unity between language and human existence. Interpretation can never be divorced from language or objectified. Because language comes to humans with meaning, interpretations and understandings of the world can never be prejudice-free. As human beings, one cannot step outside of language and look at language or the world from some objective standpoint. Language is not a tool which human beings manipulate to represent a meaning-full world; rather, language forms human reality. (quoted from Bullock, 1997)
Another important figure in this sphere is Schleiermacher whose concept of understanding includes empathy as well as intuitive linguistic analysis. He believed that understanding is not merely the decoding of encoded information, interpretation is built upon understanding, and it has a grammatical, as well as a psychological moment. The grammatical thrust places the text within a particular literature (or language) and reciprocally uses the text to redefine the character of that literature. The psychological thrust is more naive and linear. In it, the interpreter reconstructs and explicates the subject's motives and implicit assumptions. Thus Schleiermacher claimed that a successful interpreter could understand the author as well, as or even better than, the author understood himself because the interpretation highlights hidden motives and strategies.
Dilthey, initially a follower of Schleiermacher, went further. He began to emphasize that texts and actions were as much products of their times as expressions of individuals, and their meanings were consequently constrained by both an orientation to values of their period and a place in the web of their authors' plans and experiences. Therefore meanings are delineated by the author's world-view reflecting a historical period and social context. Understanding (verstehen), the basis for methodological hermeneutics, involves tracing a circle from text to the author's biography and immediate historical circumstances and back again. Interpretation, or the systematic application of understanding to the text, reconstructs the world in which the text was produced and places the text in that world. (ibid) Modern ideas on hermeneutics hold that the writer may be an editor or a redactor and that he may have used sources. In considering this aspect of discourse one must take into account the writer's purpose in writing as well as his cultural milieu. Secondly, one must consider the narrator in the writing who is usually different from the writer. Sometimes he is a real person, sometimes fictional. One must determine his purpose in speaking and his cultural milieu, taking into consideration the fact that he may be omnipresent and omniscient. One must also take into consideration the narratee within the story and how he hears. But even then one is not finished. One must reckon with the person or persons to whom the writing is addressed; the reader, not always the same as the one to whom the writing is addressed; and later readers. Thirdly, one must consider the setting of writing, the genre (whether poetry, narrative, prophecy, etc.), the figures of speech; the devices used, and, finally, the plot. (Hanko, 1991) Following the above ideas, we realize that understanding and interpreting the meaning of a discourse involves actually three factors: the author (writer), the text (or speech) and the reader.
Eugene Nida
Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence
Eugene A. Nida (1914-- ) is a distinguished American translation theorist as well as a linguist. His translation theory has exerted a great influence on translation studies in Western countries. His work on translatoin set off the study of modern translation as an academic field, and he is regareded as “the patriarch of translation study and a founder of the discipline” （Snell-Hornby 1988:1; Baker 1998:277）
Nida’s theory of dynamic equivalence is his major contribution to translation studies. The concept is first mentioned in his article “Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating”(1959) （《从圣经翻译看翻译原则》） as he attempts to define translating. In his influential work Toward a Science of Translating (1964) （《翻译原则科学探索》）, he postulates dynamic equivalent translation as follows:
In such a translation (dynamic equivalent translation) one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship, that the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that existed between the original receptors and the message (1964:159) However, he does not give a clear definition of dynamic equivalence untill 1969. In his 1969 textbook The Thoery and Practice of Translation（《翻译理论与实践》）, dynamic equivalence is defined “ in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the messages in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptores in the source language”(1969:24)
The expression “dynamic equivalence” is superseded by “functional equivalencev” in his work From One Language to Another (1986, with De Waard)（《从一种语言到另一种语言》）. However, there is essentially not much difference between the two concepts. The substitution of “functional equivalence” is just to stress the concept of function and to avoid misunderstandings of the term “dynamic”, which is mistaken by some persons for something in the sense of impact ( Nida 1993:124). In Language, Culture and Translating(1993)（《语言与文化：翻译中的语境》, “functional equivalence” is further divided into categories on two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level. The minimal level of “functional equivalence” is defined as “The readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend it to the point that they can conceive of how the original readers of the text must have understood and appreciated it”. The maximal level is stated as “The readers of a translated text should be able to understand and aprreciate it in essentially the same manner as the original readers did” (Nida 1993:118; 1995:224). The two definitions of equivalence reveal that the minimal level is realistic, whereas the maximal level is ieal. For Nida, good translations always lie somewhere between the two levels (Nida 19954:224). It can be noted that “functional equivalence” is a flexible concept with different degrees of adequacy.
Dynamic Equivalence
A term introduced by Nida(1964) in the context of Bible translation to describe one of two basic orientations found in the process of translation (see also Formal Equivalence). Dynamic equivalence is the quality which characterizes a translation in which “the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors”(Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200, emphasis removed). In other words, a dynamically equivalent translation is one which has been produced in accordance with the threefold process of Analysis, Transfer and Restructuring (Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200); formulating such a translation will entail such procedures as substituting TL items which are more culturally appropriate for obscure ST items, making lingguistically implicit ST information explicit, and building in a certain amount of REDUNDANCY(1964:131) to aid comprehension. In a translation of this kind one is therefor not so concerned with “matching the receptor-language message with the source-laguage”; the aim is more to “relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture” (Nida 1964:159). Possibly the best known example of a dynamically equivalent solution to a translation problem is seen in the decision to translate the Biblical phrase “Lamb of God” into and Eskimo language as “Seal of God”: the fact that lambs are unkown in polar regions has here led to the substitution of a culturally meaningful item which shares at least some of the important features of the SL expression (see Snell-Hornby 1988/1955:15). Nida and Taber argue that a “high degree” of equivalence of response is needed for the translation to achieve its purpose, although they point out that this response can never be identical with that elicited by the original(1969/1982:24). However, they also issue a warning about the limits within which the processes associated with producing dynamic equivalence remain valid: fore example, a comparison with the broadly simialr category of Linguistic Translaton reveals that only elements which are linguistically implict in TT-rather than any additional contextual information which might be necessary to a new audience—may legitimately be made explicit in TT. The notion of dynamic equivalence is of course especially relevant to Bible translation, given the particular need of Biblical translations not only to inform readers but also to present a relevant message to them and hopefully elicit a response(1969/1982:24). However, it can clearly also be applied to other genres, and indeed in many areas ( such as literary translation) it has arguably come to hold sway over other approaches (Nida 1964:160). See also Fuctional Equivalence. Further reading: Gut 1991; Nida 1964,1995: Nida & Taber 1969/1982.
奈达（Nida）（1964）在《圣经》翻译中所采用的术语，用来描述翻译过程的两个基本趋向之一（另见Formal Equivalence[形式对等]）。动态对等指翻译性质而言，在这种翻译过程中，“原文信息转移到接受语言，译文接受者的反应与原文接受者的反应基本相同” (Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200,原文的着重号已取消)。 换言之，在动态对等的翻译中，译文的产生要经过三个步骤：分析[Analysis]、转移[Transfer]和重组[Restructuring] (Nida & Taber 1969/1982:200); 生成这么一篇译文需要采取如下程序：用在文化上更恰当的目标语成分替换隐晦难懂的源文本成分，使语言上内隐的源文本信息明晰化；以及使用一定的冗余[Redundant] 信息来帮助理解（1964：131）。因此，进行这类翻译，译者不必十分在意“接受语信息与源语信息的匹配“；译者的目的反而主要是“考虑接受者在自身文化情境中的行为模式”（Nida，1964：159）。用动态对等方法解决翻译问题的一个最为人知的例子，是把《圣经》用语“上帝的羔羊”译成某一爱斯基摩语中的“上帝的海豹”：在地球极地羔羊不为人知，因而在此将它替换成一个具有译语文化意义的事物，替换物至少拥有部分源语表达的重要特征（见Snell-Hornby 1988/1955:15）。奈达和泰伯（Taber）认为，要达到翻译目的，就需要获得在读者反应上的“高度”对等，但他们也指出，这种反应与原文引出的反应绝对不可能完全等同（1969/1982:24）。他们还指出，产生动态对等的相关过程使受到限制的，例如，把它与大致相同类别的语言翻译[Linguistic Translation]加以比较，发现源文本中只有语言上的内隐成分可以在目标文本中明说出来，而目标读者可能需要的任何附加语境信息则不可在目标文本中增加。毫无疑问，动态对等的概念对于《圣经》翻译特别有用，因为《圣经》翻译所需要的不仅是为读者提供信息，而且是要提供有用的信息，并希望引发某种反应（1969/1982:24）。但很显然，这一概念同时也能应用于其他文体。实际上，可以认为它已在很多领域（例如文学领域）表现得比其他途径更为优胜。
Formal Equivalence
Formal Equivalence ( or Formal Correspondence) Defined by Nida as one of “two different types of equivalence” (see also Dynamic Equivalence), which “focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content”(1964:159). Formal equivalence is thus the “quality of a translaiton in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language”( Nida & Taber 1969/1982:201). Nida proposed his categorization in the context of Bible translation, and in many respects it offers a more useful distiction than the more traditional notions of free and literal translation ( Hatim & Mason 1990:7). The aim of a translator who is striving for formal equivalence is to allow ST to speak “in its own terms” rather than attempting to adjust it to the circumstances of the target culture; in practice this means, for example, using Formal rather than Functional Equivalents wherever possible, not joinning or spliting sentences, and preserving formal indicators such as punctuation marks and paragraphs breaks (Nida 1964:165). The frequent result of such strategies is of course that, because of differences in structure between SL and TL, a translation of this type “distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor lanugage, and hence distorts the message” ( Nida & Taber 1969/1982: 201). For this reason it is frequently nesessary to include explanatory notes to help the target reader ( Nida 1964:166). Like its converse, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence represents a general orientation rather than and absolute technique, so that between the two opposite extremes there are any number of intervening grades, all of which reprent acceptable methods of translation (1964:160). However, a general tendency towards formal rather than dynamic euqivalence is characterized by, for example, a concern for accuracy (1964:1598) and a preference for retaining the original wording wherever possible. In spite of its apparent limitations, however, formal equivalence is sometimes the most appropriate strategy to follow: besides frequently being chosen for translating Biblical and other sacred texts, it is also useful for Back-translation and for when the translator or interpreter may for some reason being unwilling to accept responsibility for changing the wording of TT ( see Hatim & Mason 1990: 7). It should be noted that when Nida & Taber (1969/1982) discuss this concept they use the term formal correspondence to refer to it. Further reading: Nida 1964; Nida & Taber 1969/1982; Tymoczko 1985.
Formal Equivalence 形式对等（又名 Formal Correspondence[形式对应]）
奈达（Nida）将形式对等定义为“两种不同的对等类型”之一（另见Dynamic Equivalence[动态对等]）。这种对等“强调信息本身，既强调信息的形式也强调信息的内容”（1964：159）。 这样，形式对等指“源文本的形式特征在接受语中被机械复制的翻译特性”（Nida & Taber，1962/1982: 201），奈达是在《圣经》翻译的背景下提出这个分类的，它在许多方面比传统的自由译[Free Translation]、直译/字面翻译[Literal Translation] 概念更有用（Hatim & Mason，1990：7）。力求形式对等的译者允许源文本“用自己的话语”说话，而不想对它进行调整以适应目标文化；比如，在实践中，这意味着尽可能地采用形式对等语[Formal Equivalent]而不是功能对等语[Functional Equivalent], 既不合并也不拆分句子，保留原文的标点符号、段落划分之类的形式标志（Nida，1964：165）。当然，由于源语与目标语的结构差异，采用这类策略得到的译文往往“扭转了接受语的语法与文体模式进行曲解了（原文）信息”（Nida & Taber， 1969/1982: 201）。为此，必须经常增加解释性的注释以帮助目标语读者（理解）（Nida，1964：166）。 同与其相对应的动态对等一样，形式对等反映的是一个总体倾向而不是一种绝对的技巧，因此，在这对应的两极之间村子无数的中间等级，而所有这些中间等级都代表这可以接受的翻译方法（1964：160）。然而，追求对等而非动态对等的总体趋势具有如下特征，如强调译文准确（1964:159）,并倾向于尽可能地保留原来的措辞。尽管形式对等存在一些明显的局限，然而，有时候它仍是应该遵守的最合适的策略；除了常常用来翻译《圣经》和其他宗教经文外，它同时也有利于回译[Back-translation]， 而且在口笔译者可能出于某种原因不愿意承担改变目标文本措词的责任时，也是大有裨益的（见Hatin & Mason，1990：7）。应该指出，奈达和泰伯（1969/1982）在讨论这一概念时，他们使用“形式对应”这一术语来指称它。另见Gloss Translation[释词翻译]。详阅：Nida（1964）， Nida & Taber （1969/1982）; Tymoczko(1985).
Functional Equivalence
A term used to refer to the tpye of Equivalence reflected in a TT which seeks to adapt the function of the original to suit the specific context in and for which it was produced. According to Gutt, the function that a texxt is intended to fulfil is now probably the “most widely accepted frame of reference for translation equivalence”(1991:10). However, while the term is used by a number of writers, it is perhaps defined most systematically by House (1977). House’s aim is to develop a methodology for assessing translation quality, and so her concept of funcitonal equivalence is basically evaluative. She presents (1977:42) a detailed “multi-dimensional” analysis text function in which she distinguishes the three dimensions of linguistic usage relation to the language uers (geographical origin, social class and time), and five reflecting language use (medium, participation, social role relationship, social attitude and province, or general area of discourse). Using this framwork it is possible to build up a “text profile” for both ST and TT, and the House argues that a translated text “should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function”( 1977:49). This means that there should be a high level of matching between ST and TT in the dimensions which are particularly relevant to the text in question if TT is to be considered functionally equivalent to ST(1977:49). Within House’s wider model, functional equivalence is only attainable in cases of Covert Translation(1977:205). However, according to Gutt, problems remain in the case of texts which possess more than one function(1991:10); indeed, it would be extremely difficult to construct a model which could accommodate such text. It should be noted that the term functional equivalence is also used by de Waard & Nida(1986) to replace what Nida elsewhere refers to as Dynamic Equivalence; according to de Waard & Nida, the new term is less open to misinterpretation, and its use serves to “highlight the communicative functions of translating”(1986: 1986：ⅷ). Further reading: Gutt 1991; House 1977; de Waard & Nida 1986.
Functional Equivalence 功能对等
用来指在目标语文本中反映出的对等类型的术语，该目标文本旨在使原文功能适应它得以生成以及为其而生成的特定语境。按照格特（Gut）的观点，现在，文本的功能或许是“翻译对等的最为普遍接受的参考框架”（1991：10）。然而，尽管这一术语为许多学者所采用，或许给它提供最系统的定义的使豪斯（House）（1977）。豪斯的目的是为评估翻译质量提供方法，因此，她的功能对等概念基本上评价性的。她（1944：42）提出了一种详细的。“多维度”文本功能分析，区分三种涉及语言使用者的语言用法维度（“地理来源”、“社会等级”与“时间”），还区分了五个反映语言使用的维度（“中介”、“参与”、“社会角色关系”、“社会态度”与“领域“，或一般话语范围）。运用这一框架，就有可能为源文本与目标文本建立一个“文本数据图”。豪斯指出，译本“不仅在功能上要切合源文本，而且应该采用对等的情景维度以取得这一功能”（1977：49）。这意味着，如果要想目标文本在功能上与源文本达到对等，那么，在相关文本关系特别密切的多个维度上，源文本与目标文本应当彼此高度对应（1977：49）。在豪斯所提范围更广的模式内，功能对等只有在隐型翻译[Covert Translation]的情况下才能实现（1977：204），但是，“因为必须要考虑到社会文化规范的差异”（1977：205），因此，即使在这里功能对等仍难以实现。然而，按照格特的观点，在文本具有多个功能的情况下，问题仍然存在（1991：10）；实际上，建立一个能够适应这类文本的模式是及其困难的。应该指出，功能对等这一术语也被得•瓦得（de Waard）与奈达（Nida）（1986）用来取代奈达在别处成为动态对等[Dynamic Equivalence]的概念；按照得•瓦得与奈达的观点，这一术语不那么容易被人误解，而且使用它可以“强调翻译的交际功能”（1986：ⅷ）。Polysystem Theory
Itamar Even-Zohar ( 佐哈尔)， born in 1939 in Tel Aviv, Israel, is a researcher of culture and professor of Poetics and Comparative Literature of the Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University. Even-Zohar’s integral contribution is internationally known as the polysystem theory and the theory of cultural repertoires, which gave rise to a line of research areas.
He has been developing the polysystem theory designed to deal with dynamics and heterogeneity in culture concentrating on interactions between various cultures. In earlier stages of his work, he contributed to developing a polysystemic theory of translation, designed to account for translation as a complex and dynamic activity governed by system relations rather than by a priori fixed parameters of compatative language capabilities. This has subsequently led to studies on literay interference, eventually analyzed in terms of intercultural relations.
The literay traditions generally perceive the translated texts as a cultural intruder, a carrier of foreign values to that particular cultural system. When a culture is stable and self-sufficient, translated literature holds a peripheral position and imported items have to be presented as compatible with the indigenous tradition for acceptability. Then target acceptability-oriented translation strategies are most likely used. On the other hand, translation is usually undertaken for the purpose of bringing about new ideas or changes. In the situation when a literay polysystem is young, weak or in crisis, translated literature may assume a central position, as a cultural tool, taking part “in the process of creating new, primary models” （Even-Zohar 1990a：50）Thus translated literature holds a more central position when a system is weak and in need of forces from other cultures in order to fill in cultural gaps or to legimate the existing structures of power, and when the foreign text contributes to reinforce esthetic or ideological valuse already present within the system and becomes instrumental to the establishment or reinforcement of cultural values. Due to the conception of translation as a supplementary activity or a secondary product, translation appears to have a secondary function in the polysystem of the target culture. Translation can be viewed as a means by which a culture influences another culture, introducing new and foreign impulses in the target culture.
The term “polysystem” refers to the entire network of correlated systems, liteary and extra-literary within a society. For exploring intra-systemic literay relations, Even-Zohar posited in 1978 the notion of polysystem for the aggregate of literary systems including all canonized and non-canonized forms in a given culture, based on his recognition of the importance of translated literature in liteary history. He developed an approach as polysystem theory to attempt to explain the functions of the all kinds of writing within a give culture and his analysis demonstrated that translated literature functions differently depending upon the age, strenth, and atability of the particular polysystem (Gentzler 1993:114-115)
Within a literary polysystem, there exists a hierarchical structure of differing subsystems, which are different types of literature---canonized, non-canonized, and translated literature. They constantly struggle for a more central position than others to maintain a primary position in the culture rather than the secondary position. This competition leads to a dynmic, ongoing process of literary mutation and evolution. The role translated literature plays in the culture is either central or peripheral, primary or secondary. If it occupies a primary positon, it participates actively in shaping the centre of the polysystem ( Even-Zohar 1987,as cited in Munday 2001:110). It may serve for innovations in the liteary history and may set up new models in the target culture. If it assumes a secondary position, it represents a peripheral system within the polysystem and conforms to the established literary norms and conventional forms of the target culture.
Even-Zohar suggests that the position occupied by translated literature in the polysystem conditions the translation strategy (ibid.). If it is primary, the translator is more concerned with the linguistic and cultural feutures of the source text to produce an adequate translation, whereas if it is secondary, the translator is prepared to emphasize the literary conventions and cultural features of the target system. He also suggests that the relationship between translated literature and the literary polysystem is dependent upon the specific socio-cultural, historical circumstances operating within the literary system ( Gentzler 1993:117) He observes the position of translation within varying cultural systems to determine how texts to be translated are selected by the receiving culture and how translated texts adopt certain norms and functions as a result of their relation to other target language systems ( Even-Zohar 1978, as cited in Gentzler 1993:118) .Polysystem theory is therefore revised to include extraliterary factors, socio-cultural forces such as patronage, social conditions, economics, and institutional manipulation correlated to the way tranaslations are chosen and function for the cultural turn in translation studies that further enhanced the development of Western translation theories.
（以下汉语并非和英文完全对应，只是提供相关的资料帮助理解英文）
多元系统理论
伊塔马．埃文-佐哈尔（ Itamar Even-zohar） 任教于以色列台拉维夫大学，是该校文化研究学院街教授。埃文-佐哈尔的多元系统思想来源于俄国形式主义文艺理论家梯雅诺夫（Juriji Tynjanov），雅各布孙、埃肯鲍姆（Boris Ejkhenbaum）等人，但在他手里得到很大的发展。他认为，文化、语言文学、社会都不是由互不相干的元素组成的混合体，而是由相关的元素组成的系统。这些系统，又不是单一的系统，而是由多个相交甚至相叠的系统组成，所以他创造了“多元系统”这个名词。（ Even-zohar， 1990：9-11）
所谓“多元系统”，指的是社会中各种相关的系统-----文学以及文学以外（extraliterary）所有相关系统的集成，用以解释该文化中的全部书写。系统是分层级的，包括所谓“高级的”、“中级的”、“经典的”（canonical）的文学形式，例如诗歌；以及所谓“低的”、“边缘的”、“非经典的”（non-canonical），例如儿童文学、通俗文学；有“首位”重要（创新的）和“次要”重要的（只是强化现存的形式的）等等，多元系统理论就是要解释在某种特定文化中各种系统的功能。翻译文学只是他研究的一个方面，但他发现，一般总认为翻译是一种次要系统，这是不准确的。对于一种大的古老的文化和英语、和法语来说也许如此，但对于一些年轻的或小的国家如以色列和低地国家等可能就并非如此。埃文-佐哈尔认为，多系统必须包含文学这个系统，原因是翻译对文学的发展有重大的影响。
埃文-佐哈尔比较系统地阐述了“多元系统”（Even-zohar,1978）。他着重讨论了翻译-----作为“多系统”的一个系统-----在文学多系统里所占的位置。他认为，要弄清翻译文学在一个文学系统里的功能或位置，殊不容易。一般的研究只是把文学视作“翻译”或个别的“翻译作品”，而从来没有把它看作一个文学系统。在他看来，翻译其实既可以在文学多元系统中占主要位置，也可以站次要位置，似乎当时该文化里其他文学系统的状态而定。所谓占主要的位置（ in a primary position），是指翻译在塑造多元系统的中心部分的过程中，扮演着举足轻重的角色。也就是说，翻译文学积极参与建造多元系统的中心工作，是革新力量不可或缺的一部分。这种情况下会在下列三种情境下出现：一是当一个多元系统尚未定型，即是说，文学的发展尚属“幼嫩”，也就是处于正在建立中的阶段；二是该文学在一组相关的文学体系中处于“边缘”或“弱势”的阶段；三是该文学出现转折点、危机或文学真空（ literary vacuum）的阶段（Even-zohar 1978：120-123）。第一种情况如以色列，第二种情况如低地国家，第三种情况他举的是20世纪60年代的美国，那时现存的种种文学对我们理解“五四”前后的中国翻译情况很有启发）。在这几种情境下，原来的文学不单是要借助文学来输入新的思想和内容，就是形式和技巧，也需要翻译来提供。因此，翻译活动会变得很频繁和重要，也占据了主要的或中心的位置，并且扮演了创新的角色。
但倒过来的情形偏大不相同了。当原来的文学系统处于处于强势，发展完备的时候，便无须依赖翻译来输入外来因素。在这种情形下，翻译会处于次要的地位，即翻译文学在多元素系统里是只能形成一个边缘系统，其文学模式往往是次要的。无论在形式还是在内容上，它们只能认同或依附于原有文学里一些强有力的系统，结果就是进一步巩固这个系统的地位。因此，即使原有的文学系统已开始发展出新的规范模式，但翻译文学仍固守着原来的准则，这种情形下，翻译文学成为保守力量的一大支柱。埃文-佐哈尔认为，这是一个很有趣的矛盾现象：翻译这个可以引进崭新的意念、项目、特色的媒介，竟然成为保守传统口味的工具。
不过，埃文-佐哈尔又指出，翻译文学在多系统中占主要或次要位置，不一定等于说整个翻译文学都处于同一个位置。有时候，某一部分的翻译文学会占据中心位置，另一部分可能处于边缘位置。文学之间的接触联系与翻译文学的地位息息相关。当外来文学大规模介入一个文学时，往往是译自重要原语的那一部分翻译文学才占据中心位置，而不是全部文学都占有同样的位置。此为，根据许多学者和他本人的研究结果显示，在“正常”的情况下，翻译文学会处于次要或边缘的位置。从理论上来分析，这是合理的。没有哪个文学传统永远处于萌芽状态，也不可能较长时间处于劣势、转折点或危机阶段。
翻译文学所处的位置也就成为影响译者采取何种翻译规范或方法的重要因素。当翻译文学占主要位置时，由于翻译活动的主要作用是参与创造新的、主要的模式，因此，译者的主要任务就不单单是在本国的文学形式中寻找现成的模式，把原文套进来；相反，译者会打破本国传统规范。在这种情况下，译文在充分性（adequacy）方面会较倾向于接近原著，从而将原著里多数新元素（相对于译入语文化原有的元素）带到译入语言文化系统里。当然，从译语文学的角度来看，译文所采纳的翻译规范初始可能显得太标新立异以致译入语文化难以接受，那么，这种翻译文学便会受到排斥，没法在译入语文化的文学系统中占一席位。如果翻译文学的新时尚在文学斗争中失败了，依照它的规范而产生的翻译作品就永远不能流行；但如果翻译文学在这场“文学斗争”中获胜，真个文学系统的准则便会更加丰富、灵活。当然，如果译入语文化中的文学系统是强势，翻译处于次要的位置时，译者只能屈服或遵从系统里一些原有的规范，在译入语文化文学系统中寻找已有的模式，结果往往需要修订或放弃原著里的内容或形式，在这种情况下，这样的翻译跟原著的差距会比较大。
埃文-佐哈尔的理论为翻译学科提供了新的研究视野，极具参考价值:
第一， 他基本确定了翻译文学跟译入语文化文学在不同情况下的不同关系。
第二， 翻译活动实际上是由译入语文化里的各个系统所决定。什么会被翻译出来，是决定于译入语文化认为究竟什么才是它所需要的；怎样去进行翻译，什么应该保留，什么应该删除，也是决定于译入语文化里的一些常规（norms）。这种翻译决定受译入语文化影响的观点，是“多元系统理论”与早期“翻译研究”理论最大的不同之处[ 早期翻译研究开拓者霍姆斯认为，除出于意外外，翻译的决定都是来自译者的主观因素，结果，译者便能够主观地透过翻译影响译入语文化（ Gentzler，1993：107）
既然翻译活动是由译入语文化里的各个系统做决定，那么“翻译就不再是个其性质和界限一经确定就不再变化的东西，而是依赖于一定文化系统中各种关系的一种活动”。（Even-Zohar，1990：5），这一对翻译性质的新认识导致了一系列新见解：其一是把翻译看作只不过是系统间传递的一种特殊形式，这就使人们能以更广泛的范围内来看待翻译问题，一把握它的真正特色（同上，73-74）；其二可以使人们不再纠缠于原文和译文的等值问题，而把译文看作是存在在目标系统中的一个实体，来研究它的各个性质（同上：74-75）。正是这一点后来发展了图里的“以译文为中心的理论”（Target-oriented approach）；其三，既然译文并不是在几种现成的语言学模式里做出选择，而是多种系统的制约，那么就可以从更广泛的系统间传递的角度来认识翻译现象。（同上：75-77）
第三，由于埃文-佐哈尔是从整个译入语文化的多元系统入手来研究翻译文学，同时，他并不认为把个别的单一译本跟原文对比，就能得出任何有建设性的结论，而是应该对大量的译文作分析，因此，他的理论最适宜应用于探究某一时期的整体翻译面貌，这根过去大部分所谓的翻译评论的文章，只以一两篇作品作讨论对象的做法很不相同。
Skopos theory目的论
20世纪70年代,功能派翻译理论兴起于德国。其发展经过了以下几个阶段。
第一阶段: 凯瑟琳娜•莱斯首次把功能范畴引入翻译批评,将语言功能,语篇类型和翻译策略相联系,发展了以源文与译文功能关系为基础的翻译批评模式,从而提出了功能派理论思想的雏形。莱斯认为理想的翻译应该是综合性交际翻译,即在概念性内容,语言形式和交际功能方面都与原文对等,但在实践中应该优先考虑的是译本的功能特征。
第二阶段: 汉斯•弗米尔(Vermeer)提出了目的论,将翻译研究从原文中心论的束缚中摆脱出来。该理论认为翻译是以原文为基础的有目的和有结果的行为,这一行为必须经过协商来完成;翻译必须遵循一系列法则,其中目的法则居于首位。也就是说,译文取决于翻译的目的。此外,翻译还须遵循“语内连贯法则”和“语际连贯法则”。前者指译文必须内部连贯,在译文接受者看来是可理解的,后者指译文与原文之间也应该有连贯性。这三条原则提出后,评判翻译的标准不再是“对等”,而是译本实现预期目标的充分性。弗米尔还提出了翻译委任的概念,即应该由译者来决定是否,何时,怎样完成翻译任务。也就是说,译者应该根据不同的翻译目的采用相应的翻译策略,而且有权根据翻译目的决定原文的哪些内容可以保留,哪些需要调整或修改。
费米尔认为，翻译中的最高法则应该是“目的法则”。也就是说，翻译的目的不同，翻译时所采取的策略、方法也不同。换言之，翻译的目的决定了翻译的策略和方法。对于中西翻译史上的归化、异化之争，乃至近二三十年译界广泛讨论的形式对等与动态对等，“目的论”都做出了很好的解释。翻译中到底是采取归化还是异化，都取决于翻译的目的。由于功能翻译理论就是以“目的原则”为最高准则，而任何翻译活动都是有目的的行为，片名翻译的最终目标和主要功能是帮助人们了解影片的主要内容，并激发观众的观看欲望。因此我们需要对功能翻译理论尤其是“目的论”流派做简单了解。
第三阶段: 贾斯塔•霍茨—曼塔里借鉴交际和行为理论,提出翻译行为理论,进一步发展了功能派翻译理论该理论将翻译视作受目的驱使的,以翻译结果为导向的人与人之间的相互作用。该理论和目的论有颇多共同之处,弗米尔后来也将二者融合。
第四阶段: 克里斯汀娜•诺德全面总结和完善功能派理论。克里斯汀娜•诺德首次用英语系统阐述了翻译中的文本分析所需考虑的内外因素,以及如何在原文功能的基础上制定切合翻译目的的翻译策略。克里斯汀娜•诺德对功能派各学说进行了梳理,并且提出译者应该遵循“功能加忠诚”的指导原则,从而完善了该理论。
翻译目的•翻译要求•翻译策略与翻译失误——“翻译目的论”在翻译研究中的应用
摘要: 本文运用“翻译目的论”的原理，从翻译的目的性出发，列举例证分析了我国一些重点大学网站英文版“学校概况”中存在的功能性、文化性、语言性等类型的翻译失误，并论证了产生这些失误的根源——译者缺少翻译的目的意识。
关键词: 翻译目的论；翻译要求；翻译策略；翻译失误
Skopos, Translation Brief, Translation Strategies and Translation Errors————A Case Study from the Perspective of Skopostheorie Fan Yong (Foreign Language Dept Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology 210044)
Abstract: This paper is a case study from the perspective of Skopostheorie. Proceeding from the intentionality of translation, the author makes an in-depth analysis of the functional, cultural and linguistic translation errors in the English-version web profiles of several leading Chinese universities. The author further demonstrates that these errors are caused by the translators‘ lack of awareness of the translation Skopos. Key words: Skopos; translation brief; translation strategies; translation errors
一、 引言
“翻译目的论”是德国功能派翻译学家Reiss、Vermeer和Nord等从翻译行为的目的性出发提出的一种翻译理论。该理论的核心原则是“目的准则”： “任何翻译行为都是由翻译的目的决定的，简而言之，就是‘翻译的目的决定翻译的手段’。”（Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 101; 转引自Nord 2001: 29）该理论超越了传统的“等值”或“等效”的翻译观，解决了长期以来困扰译学界的“直译”和“意译”、“动态对等”和“形式对等”、“异化”与“归化” 的二元对立。该理论认为：只要能达到翻译的目的，对原文既可以采用逐字直译的方法，也可以采用完全改写的方法，或者采用介于两者之间的任何翻译策略。而评价一篇译文的优劣，并非是看它对原文的等值程度（equivalence，包括功能等值），而是看它对于翻译目的的“适宜性（adequacy）”，即是否有助于在译语情境中实现译文的预期功能。“翻译目的论”为翻译研究提供了全新的视角，本文以中国高校网站的中英文版“学校概况”为实证材料，探讨如何运用“翻译目的论”的原理，研究英汉互译的实际问题。
随着我国高等教育网络化信息化的发展，中国各高校的自建网站已日益成为展示学校形象，提供各种网上服务的重要窗口。许多高校的网站都有中英文两种版本，而随着我国高校对外交流合作的扩大，中国高校英文网站的国外来访者也越来越多，他们往往会浏览网站中的“学校概况（简介）”，以了解该校的概貌，获得对该校的初步印象。因此中国高校英文网站的“学校概况（简介）”的作用就显得尤为重要。
“翻译目的论”将翻译看作是一种基于原文的文本处理过程，原文的地位不再“神圣不可侵犯”，译者可以根据翻译的目的决定原文的哪些内容可以保留，那些需要调整或改写；而且“原文仅仅是译者使用的多个‘信息来源（offer of information）’的一种”（Nord 2001: 25）从这一观点来看，虽然中国高校网站的英文版“学校概况”的产生过程可能比较复杂，比如：由中国学者翻译中文版“学校概况”，再经外国专家润色；由精通汉语和英语的学者根据中文版“学校概况”并参考其他外宣材料（如该校的招生广告等）重新改写而成等，但中文版“学校概况”无疑是英文版“学校概况”的主要信息来源，后者是通过各种文本操作如：删节、压缩、改写和归化等从前者派生出的文本，两者之间存在某种必然的联系。因此
此，我们完全可以将英文版“学校概况”看作是中文版的英译本，而英文版“学校概况”的质量则取决于这种翻译的“适宜性”。
二、翻译要求
为了使翻译有的放矢，译者就必须充分了解他的翻译目的是什么。“翻译目的论”认为：译者在动笔翻译之前，应该从委托其进行翻译的客户那里得到一份说明翻译目的的“翻译要求（translation brief）”，包括译文预期功能、译文读者、译文接受的时间和空间，译文的传播媒介等；或者是译者和客户共同讨论得出“翻译要求”。如果没有“翻译要求”作为译者在翻译过程中选择各种翻译策略的依据，翻译就成了无的放矢的盲目行为，实现翻译的预定目的就无从谈起。
我们对中国高校网站的“学校概况”英译的“翻译要求”作如下设想：
（1）译文的预期功能：译文和原文的功能基本相同，即“信息功能”（informative function）和“呼唤功能”（appellative function）。“信息功能”指译文要介绍该校在教学、科研等方面的概貌，“呼唤功能”指译文要推介和提升该校的形象。但由于中文版“学校概况”的浏览者多为对该校有所了解的国内人士，其中很多是准备报考该校的学生，所以原文更侧重于“呼唤功能”；而浏览英文版“学校概况”的外国人士主要是想了解有关该校的实用信息，所以译文更侧重“信息功能”。
（2） 译文的预期读者（target addresses）：译文的受众可能包括：有意和中国高校的同行开展学术交流合作的国外学者，希望了解中国高等教育现状的国外学者，有意到中国高校留学进修的外国学生，有意和中国高校合作的国外企业界人士等。Newmark将读者划分为三种类型：学者型读者（the expert）、受过良好教育的普通读者（the educated layman）、受教育程度不高的读者（the uninformed）（Newmark，2001: 15）。按照这一标准，英文版“学校概况”的预期读者显然主要属于前两种类型，而且译文的预期读者对该中国高校不太了解，这正是译文需要侧重“信息功能” 的原因；和原文读者相比，译文预期读者的认知结构也缺乏有关中国语言、文化和社会等方面的预设知识，这就要求译者对译文进行适当补偿操作，如补充相关背景知识，解释性翻译等；另外，由于译文和原文的交际环境完全不同，原文中的某些内容如果直接移植到译文，可能和译文读者的文化期待相异（如价值观的冲突等），从而影响译文的可接受性，所以译文应该尽可能顺应译语的文化规范。
（3）译文和原文的传播媒体都是互联网这一新型媒体，和传统纸质媒体相比，网络媒体的特点对翻译有相当影响，比如：互联网是一种“信息密集型”媒体，而“学校概况”只是整个学校网站中的一个文本，浏览某一中国高校网站的外国人士很难有耐心去读完一篇冗长而艰涩的“学校概况”，因此译文要尽可能简洁，清楚，不宜过长，任何对预期读者无用的多余信息都应该删除；另外，互联网是一种“超文本”媒体，除了文字信息以外，还可以传播图像和声音等多媒体信息，这一特色可以用来丰富译文的内容，加强译文的信息功能；不仅如此，译者还可以通过互联网的“动态链接”技术构筑文本间的参照网络，强化文本的信息功能，特别是含有动态链接的原文文字在译入英文版后应该有同样的链接；再者，网络文本的特点之一，就是它可以方便及时地进行更新，因此要保持译文对原文的同步更新，以便及时反映最新信息。
二、 翻译策略
根据以上的“翻译要求”，我们可以制定符合翻译目的的基本翻译策略。
Nord将各种翻译方法归纳为两大基本策略：
1） “纪实翻译”（documentary translation）：“翻译的目的是用译入语记录原文作者通过原文与原文读者在原语文化情境下所进行的交流。”（Nord 2001: 47）“纪实翻译”的具体形式有：“逐字翻译”（word-for-word translation）、“字面翻译”（literal translation）和“注释翻译”（philological translation）等。
2）“工具翻译” （instrumental translation）：“翻译的目的是以原文为模型，以译入语为工具，在原文作者和译文读者之间建立一种新的交流”。（同上）如果译文的功能等同于原文的功能，则被称为“等功能翻译”（equifuntion translation）；如果译文功能不同于原文的功能，则被称为“异功能翻译”。
从前面对“翻译要求”的分析可以看出：中文版 “学校概况”的英译宜采用“异功能工具翻译”的策略，这是因为译文的读者对象和接受环境与原文完全不同，
而且原文和译文虽然都有信息和呼唤功能，但各自的侧重点有所不同：原文中的呼唤功能优先于信息功能，而译文中的信息功能优先于呼唤功能。
“异功能工具翻译”要求作者对原文做大幅度的调整，这不仅是因为原文和译文功能的侧重点不同，而且正如Nida所言：“原文语言和译文语言的差距越大，就越需要进行调整；原文文化和译文文化的差距越大，就越需要进行调整。”（Nida, 2001: 95）汉语和英语在语言文化上的巨大差异决定了在汉英“工具翻译”中，这种调整的幅度是很大的。
这种调整的目的是为了使译文具有“文本内连贯性”（intratexual coherence），即译文能为译文读者所接受和理解，或者说，译文在接受者的交际情境中是“连贯的”。这就是“目的论”中的另一重要准则——“连贯准则”，这一准则从属于“目的准则”，因为尽管在大多数情况下“目的准则”要求译文在接受者的交际情境中连贯，但在某种特殊情况下，翻译目的也可能会要求译文不连贯（如无厘头诗的翻译）。另外，无论翻译中对原文调整改写程度如何，翻译毕竟不同于创作：译文和原文始终存在某种程度的联系，Vermeer把这种联系称为“文本间连贯”或“忠实性”，并指出这种“忠实性”的程度是由翻译目的所决定的，这就是 “目的论”中的“忠实准则”（Nord, 2001: 32）。“连贯准则”和“忠实准则”都服从于“目的准则”
三、翻译失误
笔者以中国7所一流大学的英文网站中的“学校概况”为实证材料，根据以上的“翻译要求”和“翻译策略”，运用“翻译目的论”的基本原理对实证材料中存在的“翻译失误”进行了深入的分析，意在揭示这些“失误”的特点、类型和根源。为了使这种分析更加客观，笔者还参考了英国和香港地区一些大学网站中的“学校概况”（University Overview或About the University），它们就是译语文化情境中的“平行文本”（parallel texts），即：“不同文化中的相同类型或体裁的本土文本。”（Snell-Hornby 1988: 86; 转引自Nord, 2001: 56）通过研究这些“平行文本”，我们可以了解译语情境中相关的语言、文化规范，作为对译文进行评价的参照坐标。特别是香港地区的特殊历史文化环境，使得那里的“平行文本”具有英汉双语双文化的特征，为我们的研究提供了重要的参照系。
“目的论”对“翻译失误”（translation error）的定义是：“如果翻译的目的是实现某种服务于译文预期读者的功能，那么任何妨碍实现该翻译目的的（翻译方法或结果）就是一种翻译失误。” （Nord, 2001: 74）判定翻译失误的标准并非是看译文的某一词句在语言上是否正确，或看它是否忠实于原文的意义，而是看它是否符合翻译的目的。Nord举例说明了这一道理：如果翻译的目的要求表现某人语无伦次的说话方式，那么译文中出现的相应语法错误就是“适宜的”；如果翻译的目的要求译文不能有事实或数据上的谬误，而译文却照搬了原文中事实或数据上的谬误，那么这种忠实的翻译也是“翻译失误”（Nord, 2001: 73-74）
Nord采用了一种自上而下的方法（top-down approach）将翻译中的失误概括为四种不同层次的类型，按此标准，笔者对本文实证材料中的“翻译失误”列举分析如下：
（一） “功能性翻译失误”（pragmatic translation errors），这是最宏观层次的翻译失误，它实际上涵盖了译文中的所有“翻译失误”，因为它们都直接或间接地损害了译文的预定功能，“功能性失误”主要是因为译者在翻译过程中忽略了译文的功能或译文的受众。在本文的实证材料中，典型的“功能性失误”有：
（1） 原文中对译文受众无用的信息，在译文中没有删节或简化
按照“目的论”的观点，原文只是译文的一个信息来源，“译者不可能像原文作者那样提供同样数量或同样性质的信息”（Nord, 2001: 35）。原文中的某些信息在译语情境中可能不再有多少交际价值，反而会占用宝贵的文本空间，损害译文的信息功能。比如：中国不少重点大学英文网站中的“学校概况”常常像中文版文本那样，用很长的篇幅去介绍学校的历史沿革，而大多数外国读者的认知图式中缺乏有关中国历史文化社会等方面的预设知识，对这样的内容感到陌生费解，特别是学校沿革中涉及到许多历史事件、人物等文化专有项（culture-specific items）时就更是如此，如果加上大量的注释，又会加重浏览者的阅读负担；更重要的是，大多数译文受众对这样的内容不感兴趣，他们主要关注的是该校在教学科研等方面的现状，因此对译文受众没有什么交际价值的原文信息应该删除或简化。
另外，英文版“学校概况”中的某些信息，在译语情境中完全是不言自喻的冗余信息，比如：
例1： The University has set up scholarships for students, and awards for teachers.（南京大学网页：http: //www.nju.edu.cn/cps/site/NJU/njue/profile/index.htm ）
例2：…and will continue to give priority to education and research. （浙江大学网页：http://www-2.zju.edu.cn/english/about/index.htm）
任何国家的一流大学，都会有一套完善的奖学金制度和对教师的奖励制度，另外，无论哪一所大学，都应该以教学和科研为中心，对译文受众来说这些都是不言自明的常识知识，在译文中出现这样的信息是毫无意义的。
（2） 原文中对译文读者有用的重要信息，在译文中反而删减或简化
这种“翻译失误”和前一种“翻译失误”虽然“症状”相反，但“病因”相同：他们都是由于译者在翻译过程中缺乏“目的意识”造成的，例如：
例3：李政道、丁肇中、杨振宁、普列高津、格拉肖、芒德尔等多位诺贝尔奖获得者被授予名誉教授或名誉博士称号。美国前总统布什、法国前总统密特朗、澳大利亚前总理霍克等国外政要也先后来南大访问……（南京大学网页：http://www.nju.edu.cn/njuc/xxgk/index.htm）Over 20 world-famous scholars have been conferred Nanjing University honorary doctorates and professorships. （南京大学网页：http://www.nju.edu.cn/cps/site/NJU/njue/profile/index.htm ）
上例的中文内容是反映该校的国际影响和声望的关键信息，对译文受众来说极具交际价值，而在该校英文网站的“学校概况”中，中文原文的第一句话被概括化，而第二句则干脆被删去，这种盲目的删节，反而损害了译文的信息功能和呼唤功能。
（3） 呆板的“逐字翻译”或“字面翻译”
宏观的“异功能工具翻译”策略并不排除对具体的词语采用“逐字翻译”或“字面翻译”的操作方法，但通过这两种直译方法得出的译文必须地道自然，符合“文本内连贯”和“文本间连贯”的要求，否则就是一种“翻译失误”。
比如，本文实证材料中常常将“（全国）重点大学”之类的中文说法直译成（national ）key university。但笔者在英国和香港地区一些大学网站的“学校概况”（译语平行文本）中未见到过key university这种说法，national这一修饰语也是多余的，因为在西方大部分一流大学都是私立的，很少有学校刻意强调自己是national university，实际上我们可以用“译语平行文本”中的近似说法：a leading university、one of the most successful universities或a major (Chinese) university来翻译“（全国）重点综合性大学”之类的中文概念，才能为译文受众所理解和接受。同样道理“（本科）专业”不应该翻译成 “specialty”，而应该用“译语平行文本”中通用的“undergraduate program”来表达。
（4） 译文对某些文化专有项缺乏必要的注释。
奈达曾经指出：“跨文化交际中的一个主要难题是：在很多情况下共享信息的数量和性质存在巨大差异。”（Nida, 2001: 111），在翻译过程中，译者常常需要通过注释的方法来弥补译文读者所缺乏的共享信息或预设知识，否则译文读者对某些文化专有项就无法理解。比如：
例4： In 1995, USTC was approved by the Central Government as one of the first batch of universities obtaining the support of construction in the National 9th Five-year Plan and the "Project 211". |
|
发表于 2017-8-6 23:13:58