浅谈旅游景点解说词的特点及翻译策略.docx

浅谈旅游景点解说词的特点及翻译策略论文关键词：景点介绍翻译功能对等理论论文摘要：随着我国加入世贸组织和成功申办2008年奥运会，在未来的几年内将会有越来越多的外国游客来中国旅游。英语作为一种全球性的语言，在接待外国游客时将会是最重要的语言。为了迎合外国旅游者的需要，很多旅游机构和出版社都出了许多旅游资料，如景点介绍、旅游广告、景点告示、公共标识和旅游指南等。旅游景点解说词是旅游资料翻译的难点。由于中西方巨大的文化差异，把中国旅游景点的解说词翻译成英文是一件非常困难的事情。现在，中国旅游景点解说词翻译的质量还远不尽如人意。因此，在这一方面的研究是非常必要和紧迫的。本论文以奈达的功能对等理论为理论基础，采用一些中国旅游景点解说词的英文翻译作为例子，来对旅游景点解说词英译中的现存问题进行研究并提供一些可能性的解决办法。IntroductionAfterenteringWTOandthecountryssuccessfulbidtohostthe2008OlympicGames,Chinawillbevisitedbymoreandmoreforeigntouristsintheyearstocome.Englishtourists'materialsamongwhichscenic-spotintroductionisoneofthemostimportantpartshavebecomeaneffectivewaytopublicizeChinaandpromoteChina,stouristindustry.However,variousproblemsarestillprevalentinformalandinformaltouristmaterialsandthetranslationqualityofscenic-spotintroductionsandothertouristmaterialsneedstobeimprovedurgently.Therefore,thepresentthesisattemptstogiveanin-depthanalysisoftheexistingproblemsintheC-Etranslationofscenic-spotintroductions.Onthebasisoftheanalysis,tentativesolutionsaresuggested.BoththeanalysisandthesuggestionarebasedonNida,sfunctionalequivalencetheory.Thepresentthesisiscomposedoffourparts.Partoneintroducesthenotionsoftouristmaterialsandscenic-spotintroductions,andreviewsthestatusquaofC-Etranslationofscenic-spotintroductions.ParttwoemploysNida,sufunctionalequivalencetheoryvasthetheoreticalbasisofthewholethesis.Partthreepresentsussometypicalexamplesofscenic-spotintroductions,bothChineseandEnglish.Thenadetailedanalysiswillbeconductedontheseexamples,inordertodiscoverthecommonproblemsintranslationofChinesescenic-spotintroduction.AndthedifferentfeaturesbetweenChineseandEnglishscenic-spotintroductionswillbesummedupthroughacomparisonbetweenthesetwokindsoftext.Inpartfour,sometentativesolutionsdirectingattheexistingproblemsinthetranslationofChinesescenic-spotintroductionswillbeprovided.ThepresentauthorhopesthatthetranslationqualityofChinesescenic-spotintroductionbeimproved,andmoreresearchesinthisfieldbeunderwayinthefuturebytranslatorsandrelevantprofessionalsinourcountry.1. Thestatusquaofscenic-spotintroductiontranslation1.1. TouristmaterialsTouristmaterialsincludescenic-spotintroductions,touristadvertisements,noticesandpublicsignsattouristattractions,tourschedules,andcoupletshungonthecolumnsofthetouristattractions,etc.1.2. Scenic-spotintroductionsScenic-spotintroductionsconveycertainparticularinformationtotouristsviasomewaysofexpression,thusfulfillsthegoalsofaestheticeducationandinformationservice.Accordingtothedifferencesofthewaysofexpression,scenic-spotintroductioncanbeclassifiedintotwocategories：onekindistheguidingintroductionmadebyprofessionaltourguides,theotherisself-guidingintroductionthroughintroductionsigns,introductionbrochures,guidemaps,vocalintroductions,videotapesorslidesandotherstaticways.Bycomparingthesetwokindsofintroductions,thelatterisbetterfortouriststotakeinusefulinformationfreelyaccordingtotheirowninterests.Somostscenicspotsadoptself-guidingintroductions,whichmostlyrelyonintroductionsigns.Therefore,thepresentthesiswillmainlyfocusonthisaspect.1.3. Thepresenttranslationlevelofscenic-spotintroductionOwingtotheculturaldifferencesbetweenChinaandwesterncountries,therearemanydifficultiesinthetranslationprocess.Manytranslatorsareaccustomedtotranslatescenic-spotintroductionsbasedonChinesemindsetandwaysofexpression.Asaresult,inaccuraciesandmistakescanoftenbeseeninthetranslatedtexts.Intoday,sChina,thetranslationqualityofscenic-spotintroductionsisfarfromsatisfactoryduetocountlessspellingmistakes,grammaticalmistakes,andculturalmisinterpretations,etc.Therefore,thetranslationofscenic-spotintroductionsandtheresearchonitisnecessaryandurgent.2. TheoreticalframeworkThemaingoaloftranslationis,nodoubt,toestablishaparticulartypeofcorrespondencebetweenthesourcetextandthetargettext.Thenatureofthecorrespondencehasbeenreferredto“faithfulness”or“fidelity"，ormorepredominantly,thenotionofequivalence,Theterm“equivalence“intranslationfirstappearedinJ.R.Firth,swriting(1957)whenshestatedthat“theso-calledtranslationequivalentsbetweentwolanguagesareneverreallyequivalentv(Snell-Hornby,1988：37).Withthedevelopmentoflinguisticsandthestudyoftranslationin1960s,translationequivalencevbecamethefocusofstudy.2.1. AgeneralintroductionofNida,sFunctionalEquivalenceTheory2. 1.1.BeingputforwardasopposedtoformalequivalenceEugeneA.Nida,aworld-famousAmericanlinguistandtranslationtheorist,hasanoverwhelminginfluenceinthetranslationfield.OneofNida,sgreatestcontributionstotranslationtheoryistheconceptoffunctionalequivalence,whichwasfirstputforwardasdynamicequivalencesopposedtoformalequivalenceinhisbookTowardsaScienceofTranslatingin1964.Hearguesthattherearetwotypesofequivalence：formalequivalenceanddynamicequivalence.Formalequivalencefocusesattentiononthemessageitself,inbothformandcontent”，whiledynamicequivalenceisbasedupon“theprincipleonequivalenteffectn(Nida,1964：159).Informalequivalencetranslation,oneisconstantlyconcernedwithsuchcorrespondenceaswordtoword,andsentencetosentence,whichmeansthattwolanguagesareconstantlycomparedtoensureaccuracyandcorrectness.However,translationismorethanmerelyalinguisticactivity.ItattemptstobringtogethertwoethnographicalIydifferentwords.Enlightenedbycommunicativelinguistictheorywhichbelievesthatlanguageisusedforcommunication,Nidaintroducestheconceptofudynamicequivalence”intotranslation,whichisdefined“intermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessageinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptorsinthesourcelanguage”.(Nida,1969：24)2. 1.2.FromdynamicequivalencetofunctionalequivalenceAtranslationofdynamicequivalenceaimsatcompletenaturalnessofexpression,andtriestorelatereceptortomodesofbehaviorrelevantwithincontextofhisownculture.InNida'Stheory,“dynamicequivalenceisdefinedwith“receptors'response”asitsnature.Unliketraditionaltheories,whichfocusonverbalcomparisonbetweentheoriginaltextanditstranslation,Nida,sconcepttranslatingshiftsfromutheformofthemessagevto"theresponseofthereceptor,.Thus,anewandextremelyimportantfactoristobetakenintoconsideration：thereceptor,thejudgeofthetranslation,seffect.InhisworkFromOne1.anguagetoAnother,Nidastartstousethetermfunctionalequivalencevtoavoidmisunderstanding,butheexplainsthatthemeaningoffunctionalequivalenceisthesameasthatofdynamicequivalence.Astothecontentoffunctionalequivalence,Nidadescribesitasfollows：”Basically,dynamicequivalencehasbeendescribedintermsoffunctionalequivalence.Thetranslationprocesshasbeendefinedonthebasisthatthereceptorsofatranslationshouldcomprehendthetranslatedtexttosuchanextentthattheycanunderstandhowtheoriginalreceptorsmusthaveunderstoodtheoriginaltext.”(Nida,1986：103)2. 1.3.TwolevelsoffunctionalequivalenceInthe1990s,Nidaperfectshistheorybytakingthelanguageandculturaldifferencesintoconsideration.Inhisbook1.anguage,CultureandTranslating,Nidaputsfunctionalequivalenceintotwolevelsaccordingtothedegreeofadequacy：theminimalequivalenceandthemaximumequivalence.Thedefinitionofminimalfunctionalequivalenceis“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletocomprehendittothepointthattheycanconceiveofhowtheoriginalreaderofthetextmusthaveunderstoodandappreciatedit.”(Nida,1993：118)Anythinglessthanthisdegreeofequivalenceshouldbeunacceptable.Themaximumfunctionalequivalencecanbestatedas“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletounderstandandappreciateitinessentiallythesamemannerastheoriginalreadersdid.”(ibid)Themaximumlevelofequivalenceisrarelyachievedexceptfortextshavinglittleornoaestheticvalueandinvolvingonlyroutineinformationsinceitrequiresahigherdegreeoflanguage-culturecorrespondence.Nida'sfunctionalequivalencetheoryputemphasisonculturalfactorsintranslation.InNida,sview,“Themostseriousmistakesintranslatingareusuallymadenotbecauseofverbalinadequacy,butofwrongculturalassumptions.,(Nida,1993：29)Ifregardlessoftheculturaldifferences,thereceptorswillfindthetranslationrequiringsomanyeffortstounderstandthattheyarelikelytostopreading,unlesstheyarehighlymotivated.Therefore,“Fortrulysuccessfultranslating,biculturalismisevenmoreimportantthanbilingualism.(Nida,1993：HO)Inaword,Nida,sfunctionalequivalencetheoryhasofferedaconvincinganswertothedisputesoverliteralandfreetranslationlastingfor200yearsandgivesprioritytothereceptorovertheformsofthelanguage.2.1. TwoessentialnotionsofFunctionalEquivalenceTheoryNida,stheoryintroducesthereceptors'responsetoevaluatethequalityofatranslatedtext.In1969,inhiscollaboratedworkwithCharlesTaber,TheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation,Nidadefinestranslationas“reproducingthereceptorlanguagetheclosestnaturalequivalenceofthesourcelanguagemessage,firstintermsofmeaningandsecondlyintermsofStyIe”(Nida,1969：12)Thedefinitioncontainstwoessentialnotions：equivalenceandreceptors'response.2. 2.1.EquivalenceTraditionally,theadequacyofatranslationisjudgedontheprincipleofthecorrespondenceinlexiconandgrammarbetweenthesourcelanguageandthetargetlanguage.Furthermore,thecorrespondenceisfrequentlystatedintermsofuequivalencev.Nidasuggeststhatfunctionalequivalenceshouldbediscussedintermsofarangeofadequacybecausenotranslationisevercompletelyequivalentandnotranslationcanbeequivalenttothesourcemessageinalltheaspectsatthesametime.TheconceptofequivalenceinNida,stheoryisequivalenceonvaryingdegreeswhichgivespracticalsignificancetofunctionaltranslation.Nidadoesnotinsistthatcompleteequivalenceisachievable,“Absolutecorrespondencebetweenlanguagesisnotalwayspossible.,(Nida,1964：185)Inhisview,translatingwasnottogetsomethingcompletelyidentical,buttoreproduce“closestnaturalequivalenttothesourcelanguagemessagevinthereceptorlanguage.(Nida,1969：12)Aswecansee,theterm“equivalence”inNida,stheoryisusedinarelativesense,i.e.theclosestpossibleapproximationtothesourcelanguagemessage.So“equivalence”shouldnotbeunderstoodinthemeaningof“identity”butonlyintermsof“proximity”.Nidaalsoproposestheminimalandmaximaldegreesofequivalenceonthebasisofbothcognitiveandexperimentalfactors.Hedefinestheminimal,realisticdefinitionoffunctionalequivalenceas“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletocomprehendittothepointthantheycanconceiveofhowtheoriginalreadersofthetextmusthaveunderstoodandappreciatedit.”(Nida,1993：118)anddefinesthemaximal,idealdefinitionas“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletounderstandandappreciateitinessentiallythesamemannerastheoriginalreadersdid.”(ibid)Anytranslationlessthantheminimaldegreeofequivalenceisunacceptableandthemaximallevelofequivalenceisalwaysonlyanidealsituation.Whathewantstogetisequivalenceondifferentdegrees,orpracticalequivalence,whichisreasonableandpractical.2.2.2.Receptors'responseWhenevaluatingatranslation,sometranslationtheoriesjustconcentrateonmessage-conveyanceofthetargetlanguage,neglectingtheroleofreceptors.Theirmainconcernisthatthemessageinthetargetlanguageshouldmatchascloselyaspossiblethedifferentelementsinthesourcelanguage.Thereforetheymakeconstantcomparisonbetweenthemessageinthesourcecultureandthemessageinthetargetculturetodeterminestandardsofaccuracyandcorrectness.Enlightenedbythecommunicationtheory,Nidaattachesgreatimportancetotheroleofreceptorandtherelationshipbetweenreceptorandmessagebysayingthat“Itisessentialthatfunctionalequivalencebestatedprimarilyintermsofacomparisonofthewayinwhichtheoriginalreceptorsunderstandandappreciatethetextandthewayinwhichreceptorsoftranslatedtextunderstandandappreciatethetranslatedtext.”(Nida,1993：116)AccordingtoNida,thetargetaudienceforwhichatranslationismadealmostalwaysconstitutesamajorfactorindeterminingthetranslationproceduresandtheleveloflanguagetobeemployed.Inproducingafunctionalequivalencetranslationonemustbeconstantlyawareofthecapacityandmotivationofreceptors.(JinDi&Nida,1984：89)Inotherwords,howtotranslateamessagefirstdependsonwhetherthetargetreceptorscanunderstanditornot.AccordingtoNida,thefunctionalequivalenceisbaseduponthe“principleofequivalenceeffectv.Itisofgreatimportancetoestimatehowwellthereceptorsunderstandandappreciatethetranslatedtext.What,Smore,Nida,sidealsituationisthatthetargetreceptors,responsetothetargettextshouldbethesametotheoriginalreceptors,responsetotheoriginaltext.Therefore,judgingthequalityofatranslationcannotstopwithacomparisonofcorrespondinglexicalmeaning,grammaticalclassesandrhetoricaldevices,butwithwhetherthetranslatedtexthasthesameeffectonthereceptorsastheoriginaltexthasontheoriginalreceptors.3. ExamplesandanalysisThescenic-spotintroductiontranslationsspeciallyprovideserviceforforeigntourists.ThelargeculturalgapbetweenChinaandthewesterncountriesmakesthetranslationofChinesescenic-spotintroductions,whichcontainsalotofculturalelements,ahardnutforthetranslatingjob.ThetranslatorsnotonlyhavetohaveagoodcommandofbothChineseandEnglish,butalsobehighlyproficientininterculturaltransfer.Thereadersofscenic-spottranslationareagroupofspecialaudiencewhoknowlittleaboutChinesecultureandlanguage,sotranslationplaysasignificantroleinpublicizingChina.Althoughincreasingattentionhasbeenpaidtothisfield,thequalityoftranslationisstillfarfromsatisfactory.Sointhispart,wearegoingtolookintosomecasesofinappropriateandevenfalsetranslation,soastohaveananalysisoftheexistingproblemsintheEnglishtranslationofChinesescenic-spotintroductions.Meanwhile,throughanalyzingseveralstandardEnglishversionsofscenic-spotintroductionsinBritain,wemayknowmoreaboutthelinguisticstyle,culturalfeaturesandexpressionalskillsaboutappropriateEnglishintroductionsofscenicspots.3. 1.Examplesofscenic-spotintroductions3. 1.1.TranslationofChinesescenic-spotintroductionsExamplel:(S1.)1：南山，面朝南海，是中国最南端的山。(T1.)2：NanshanMountain(SouthMountain),facingChineseSouthSea,isthesouthernmostmountaininChina.Example2:(T1.)：GardenoftheMasteroftheNetsThegardenknownasWangShiYuanwasfirstcreatedinthetwelfthcenturybyanofficialwhocalleditthe“Fisherman'sRetreatvorYuYin.Itwasrestoredintheeighteenthcenturyandgivenitspresentname,whichliterallymeans“TeacherWang,sGarden”.(JohnSummerfield,Fordor,speople,sRepublicofChina,1982)Inthefirstexample,“南海"istranslatedinto“ChineseSouthSea"，however,thecorrectEnglishtranslationof“南海”isthe“SouthChinaSea”.Soamoreadequatetranslationshouldbelikethis：NanshanMountain(SouthMountain),facingSouthChinaSea,isthesouthernmostmountaininChina.ThesecondexampleisanexcerptfromtheintroductionoftheGardenoftheMasteroftheNetsinSuzhoucity.Anobviousmistakehereistranslating”网师"into“TeacherWangv,for“TeacherWangvisprobably“网老师"Or“王老师"whenitistranslatedbackintoChinese.Accordingtotheoriginalmeaningofthenameofthegarden,thebestexpressionof”网师”hereshouldbe"fisherman”.Example3:(S1.)：久负盛名的大东海水如碧、沙如脂、景如画。(T1.)：Dadonghaiisafamousscenicspotandagiftgivenbynature,thesealikejade,thesandlikerouge,thescenerylikepicture.ItisoneofthesentencesintheintroductionofDadonghai,afamousscenicspotinSanyacityinHainanprovince.Thistranslationisatypicalword-for-wordtranslation：水=Water,如=Iike,碧=jade;沙=Sand,如=Iike,脂=rouge;景=scenery,如=Iike,画=PietUre.Thetranslatorattemptstoimitatetheexpressionofthesourcelanguagesofaithfullythatthetranslationisofnonormaluse.Fortheforeigntourists,itsoundsawkwardandishardtounderstand.Arefinedversioncanbelikethis：Dadonghaiiswell-knownforitsclearwater,whitesan