corresponding lexical meanings, grammatical classes, and rhetorical devices. what is important is the exte

nt to which receptors correctly understand and appreciate the translated text. accordingly, it is essential that functional equivalence be stated primarily in terms of a comparison of the way in which the original receptors understood and appreciated the text and the way in which receptors of the translated text understand and appreciate the translated text.”“翻译意味着交流,它取决于听译文或看译文的人能了解到些什么。编辑：www.11665.com 。
判断译文的优劣不能停留在有否对应的词义、语法结构和修辞手段,重要的是接触译文的人有何种程度的正确理解。所以,谈效果对等最根本的是必须比较接触原文的人怎样理解原文,接触译文的人怎样理解译文。”顺便说及,笔者没有把functional equivalence译成“功能对等”,而译成“效果对等”就是因为奈达的前述解释。译文读者对译文的理解与原文读者的理解是否相同是译文的效果问题,不是翻译的功能问题。英语的function不仅指“功能”,也可指“功效”。翻译的功能是交流,无论何种翻译均如此,但不同译文的效果却大不相同。
    奈达在《翻译理论与实践》一书里对翻译还谈过一个看法,我国很多人作过引用。英语原文是:
    translating 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.
    国人在引用时往往用译文,有一个译文是“翻译是在译入语中用最切近的、最自然的对等语再现原语的信息,首先指语义上的对等,其次是风格上的对等。”其他译文大同小异,都把equivalent译成“对等语”。
    这一译文初看似乎无大问题,只有些别扭,但实际上“对等语”三字,特别是“语”字,可能造成对奈达原意的误解,以为奈达主张直译,直译才使译文与原文在语义和风格上对等。其实,奈达这句话正好表示出他不主张直译。
    今年4月,广东有位学者向笔者谈到对这一译文的怀疑,笔者觉得他的话有道理,便在4月28日用电子邮件向奈达本人求教对equivalent一词的理解。笔者在电子邮件中说:
    “i understand you as meaning that the translated version should be so close to the source version and read so natural in the receptor language that both of them can function equivalently first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. you don't think that there are in the receptor language expressions that can be considered as counterparts of those in the source language when a translator is translating a text.”“我理解您的意思是,译文贴近原文、在译语中读来流畅的目的是使译文与原文起的效果一样,首先是表达的意义相同,其次是风格相同。您并不认为译者在翻译某一文本时,译语中有与原语对号入座的表达法可找。”
    4月29日,奈达回电说:“you are entirely right about[转贴于:论文大全网 https://www.11665.comhttps://www.11665.com/foreignlanguage/xsyy/201209/135400.html]

...

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 下一页