试析时政新词汇的英译(英文)

2  Nida’s functional equivalence theory
Nida’s functional equivalence theory is put out by great linguist Eugene A. Nida. In this chapter, the author will explain the theory in detail, and try to use this theory to instruct translation of current political words practically.
2. 1 Nida’s functional equivalence theory
Eugene A. Nida, as a world-famous American linguist, has an overwhelming influence on theh translation field. One of Nida’s most important contributions to translation theory is the concept of functional equivalence in his book Towards the Science of Translating in 1964.
    In the 1990s, Nida further perfects his theory by taking the language and cultural differences into consideration. In his book Language, Culture and Translating, Nida puts functional equivalence into two levels according to the degree of adequacy: the minimal equivalence is “The readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend it to the point that they can conceive of how the original reader of the text must have understood and appreciated it.”[4] Anything less than this degree of equivalence should be unacceptable. The maximum functional equivalence can be stated as “The readers of a translated text should be able to understand and appreciate it in essentially the same manner as the original reader did.” [4] The maximum level of equivalence is rarely achieved except for texts having little or no aesthetic value and involving only routine information since it requires a higher degree of language and cultural correspondence.

3  Exploration of basic principles for the translation of Chinese current political words
In this chapter, we will explore some basic principles for the translation of Chinese current political words in light of Nida’s Functional Equivalence.
3. 1 Meaning having priority over form
    Nida says the original message includes two aspects: form and content. He also stresses that content enjoys priority over form when the conflict between content and form arises. “…It is recognized that equivalence both meaning and style cannot always be retained…When, therefore, one must be abandoned for the sake of the other, the meaning must have priority over the stylistic forms.”[5]
Some translators have been quite unwilling to sacrifice the formal elements of the target language text for the sake of preserving what they regard as the integrity of the source text. This orientation has been particularly popular among those who have been assigned the task of translating political words. They insist upon literal translation by trying to reflect every meaningful features of the words in a form which is as similar as possible to the source language structures, for they are convinced that only in this way can they produce the most accurate reflection of the original. These translators defend their literal translation because they do not want to bring into the text any possible excuse for divergent interpretation. This idea is quite misleading in political words translation since what we are translating is the content not the form. Although normally avoiding outright grammatical mistakes, this kind of translation is usually stylistically and rhetorically awkward. Therefore, translating means translating meaning rather than preserving the form. The “meaning” here entails translating both designative meaning and associative meaning. For example:
肝胆相照，荣辱与共 to treat each other with all sincerity and share weal or woe
办实事、办好事 do practical things in the masses’ interest
经济适用房 affordable desirable housing for low-and middle-income families
3. 2 Creating similar effect as the original text
Functional equivalence can be interpreted in such a way that the target language receptors must not only know how the original receptors must have understood the content of the text, but they should also be able to appreciate some of the impact and appeal which such a text must have had for the original receptors. In other word, priority shall be given to target receptor’s intelligibility. However, intelligibility is not measured merely in terms of whether the words are understandable and the sentences grammatically constructed, but in terms of the total impact the message has on the one who receives it. Therefore, it would be wrong to think that the response of the receptors in the second language is measured merely in terms of comprehension of the information, for communication is not merely informative. It may take on other functions such as expressive and informative. This response can be never identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different, but there should be a high degree if equivalence of response or the translation will fail to accomplish its purpose. Take the translation of Chinese political text for example. The information contents of the two versions are essentially identical, but there is a subtle difference in cultural orientation between the versions. Sometimes a culturally neutral term is preferred when translating some terms with strong emotional connotation. The subtle cultural difference is especially clear when focusing on the subtle slogans and catch phrases used to thematize the information. The Chinese version tends to appear to the provision of services for the benefit of the community and the fulfillment of social responsibility. The English version, on the other hand, tends to be oriented towards the performance of tasks and the achievement of goals.转贴于 酷文网-论文下载中心 http://www.coolwen.net