蘇俊安 溫哈佛

（天水師范學(xué)院外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院，甘肅 天水 741000）

0 Introduction

Researchers in the 1950s and 1960s began to study translation in a systematic way of analysis.The representative scholars are Jakobson who discussed “meaning and equivalence” and Werner Koller’s correspondence and equivalence

1 Roman Jakobson:the nature of linguistic meaning and equivalence

American structuralist Roman Jakobson mainly focuses on the issue of translation:linguistic meaning and equivalence.He points out that“there is ordinary no full equivalence between code-units”.According to Jakobson,interlingual translation involves “substitute messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language”:The translator records and transmits a message received from another source.Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes.(Jakobson 1959/2000:114)

Jakobson’s idea concentrates on the equivalence of meaning from source language text to target language text and admits the differences existing between different languages in forms.In this sense,the so-called equivalence is not an ideal identity and sameness covering all aspects related to the transfer of languages in translation.It shows an objective attitude the researchers and translators take towards translation.

2 Koller’s five types of equivalence

（1）Denotative equivalence is related to equivalence ofthe extralinguistic content of a text.

（2）Connotativeequivalenceisrelated to the lexicalchoices,especially between near-synonyms.Koller sees this type of equivalence as else-where being referred to as “stylistic equivalence”.

（3）Text normative equivalence is related to text types,which different kinds of texts behaving in different ways.

（4）Pragmatic equivalence is oriented towards the receiver of the text or message.This is Nida’s “dynamic equivalence”.

（5）Formal equivalence,which is related to the form and aesthetics of the text,includes word plays and the individual stylistic features of the source text.

Compared with the two theories on translation and equivalence,Koller’s model is a concrete and comprehensive one,which provides a new perspective for the study of translation.This model is related to the internal factors and techniques in terms of translation and equivalence.

3 Case study(an excerpt from Pride and Prejudice)

The following study,which is based on the above theoretical modes,examines different Chinese versions of Pride and Prejudice and trys to testify whether the equivalent effect is achieved.

It is a truth universally acknowledged,that a single man in possession of a good fortune,must be in want of a wife.There are seven different Chinese versions of this sentence.

1）凡是有錢(qián)的單身漢，總想娶位太太，這已經(jīng)成了一條舉世公認(rèn)的真理。(translated by Wang Keyi)

2）有錢(qián)的單身漢總要娶位太太，這是一條舉世公認(rèn)的真理。(translated by Sun Zhili)

3）饒有家資的單身男子必定想要娶妻室，這是舉世公認(rèn)的真情實(shí)理。 (translated by Zhang Ling，Zhang Yang)

4）舉世公認(rèn)，一個(gè)擁有一大筆財(cái)產(chǎn)的單身男人，必定想娶一個(gè)女人做太太。這已成為一條真理。（translated by Yi Hai）

5）有錢(qián)的單身漢必定想娶親，這條真理無(wú)人不曉。(translated by Zhang Jinghao)

6）富有的單身男士一定想娶位太太，這是舉世公認(rèn)的真理。(translated by Zhang Longsheng)

7）誰(shuí)都知道，單身漢有了錢(qián)，第一件事兒就是要娶個(gè)媳婦。(translated by Zhang Xiaoyu)

By comparing the seven Chinese versions,we can find that,In this sentence，“truth” was translated into “真理”in 5 versions.In one version,it was translated into “真情實(shí)理”，the other version, “truth”was not translated directly. “truth” means a fact that is believed by most people to be true.Both“真理”and“真情實(shí)理”are equivalent to“truth.”In one version,“truth” was not translated into its equivalent target language message,the message contained in “truth” is not transferred.“universally acknowledged”was translated into “舉世公認(rèn)”in 5 versions.In other 2 versions,it was translated into “無(wú)人不曉”and “誰(shuí)都知道”.In the seven versions,the message contained in “universally acknowledged” was translated into its target language,taking a formal way with“舉世公認(rèn)”，and“無(wú)人不曉，誰(shuí)都知道”an informal way.“a single man in possession of a good fortune”was translated into “有錢(qián)的單身漢”in 2 versions;“凡是有錢(qián)的單身漢”,in one version;“饒有家資的單身男子”in one version;“一個(gè)擁有一大筆財(cái)產(chǎn)的單身男人”in one version;“富有的單身男士”in one version,“單身漢有了錢(qián)”in one version.“must be in want of a wife”was translated into“總想娶位太太”,“總要娶位太太”,“必定想要娶妻室”,“必定想娶一個(gè)女人做太太”,“必定想娶親”,“一定想娶位太太”,“第一件事兒就是要娶個(gè)媳婦”.By observing and comparing different versions,denotative equivalence is achieved:that is the common fact in source language culture is conveyed clearly.The content in both language are equivalent.

However,little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood,this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families,that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

In thissentence，there are also severalmessagesrelated to translation contained in it. “Feelings” is translated into “性 情 ”in 5 versions，“感覺(jué)” in one version，“喜好” in one version.“feeling”means something that you feel through the mind or through the senses,the idea or belief,a person’s emotions rather than their thoughts or ideas,an attitude or opinion about something,sympathy,love.“feelings”literally can be translated into “感覺(jué)”，but here the original text tends to show such a man’s disposition.Similarly, “喜好”is somehow superficial.It is a words in a literature text,such semantic translation just seeks the semantic equivalence between the two phrases. “性情”can be regarded as a typical example of Newmark’s communicative translation,which produces on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original.“Views”is translated into “ 見(jiàn) 解 ”in two versions，“見(jiàn)識(shí)”in two versions，“觀念”in one version，“想法”in one version. “View” means a personal opinion about something;an attitude towards something,what you can see.“見(jiàn)解”，“想法”and “觀念”are all equivalent to “views”.However, “見(jiàn)識(shí)”contains more sense with regard to one experience rather than one’s personal ideas. “this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families” is translated into “這條真理早已在人們心中根深蒂固”，“這條真理還真夠深入人心”，“這個(gè)真情實(shí)理家喻戶(hù)曉深入人心”，“那句至理名言已深深銘刻在他們的內(nèi)心”，“這條真理在左鄰右舍的頭腦中根深蒂固”，“這條真理深深印在人們心里”，“這個(gè)道理已在人們心中根深蒂固”。These seven versions are equivalent to the original version which express the quite similar message in different syntactic structures and phrases.

“the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.”is translated into “自己某一個(gè)兒女理所應(yīng)得的一筆財(cái)產(chǎn)”，“自己某一個(gè)女兒的合法財(cái)產(chǎn)”，“自己這個(gè)或那個(gè)女兒應(yīng)得的一筆財(cái)產(chǎn)”，“他們某個(gè)女兒的一筆正當(dāng)?shù)呢?cái)產(chǎn)”，“理所當(dāng)然應(yīng)屬于自己哪個(gè)女兒所有”，“自家某個(gè)女兒應(yīng)得的一筆財(cái)產(chǎn)”，“自己的某個(gè)女兒應(yīng)得的一筆財(cái)產(chǎn)”。 For this translation,the main differences are “合法財(cái)產(chǎn)”，“正當(dāng)?shù)呢?cái)產(chǎn)”and “應(yīng)得的財(cái)產(chǎn)”，that is the translation of the word “rightful”,“rightful” means “that is correct,right or legal.” ,which contains all the meanings of“合法”“正當(dāng)”and “應(yīng)得”。 Different choices of the target language words are closely connected with translators’background knowledge and preference.In the light of equivalent effect,they are the same.

“My dear,Mr.Bennet,” said his lady to him one day, “Have you heard that Nietherfield Park is let at last?”

In this sentence，the differences among the seven versions is the translation of the address form “My dear,Mr.Bennet”,which is translated into“我的好老爺”，“親愛(ài)的貝內(nèi)特先生”，“我親愛(ài)的貝內(nèi)特先生”，“親愛(ài)的”。“我的好老爺”is a traditional common address form a wife uses to greet her husband,especially in those families which are rich or have high rank or social status.Since the target language is Chinese mainly for Chinese readers,the version of“我的好老爺”has achieved the equivalent effect.In the original context,such address demonstrate the speaker’s impatience,strong desire for the possession,in Chinese culture,it is also the case.By contrast,“親愛(ài)的貝內(nèi)特先生”is a common address form in Western culture,for the Chinese reader,it is not so easily acceptable.

（1）Mr.Bennet replied that he had not.

The main difference is the translation of the pronoun “he”,in four versions, “he” is translated into “他”，in the other three versions, “he”is not translated.There is no big difference between them,all versions achieves the equivalent effect.

（2）“But it is,” returned she;“for Mrs Long has just been here,and she told me all about it.”

The differences of the seven versions is concerned about the different translation of “she told me all about it”,it is translated into,“他把這件事的底細(xì)，一五一十地都告訴了我。”，“他把這事一五一十全告訴我了”，“他把這件事通通都告訴我了”，“他把事情的原委全告訴我了”，“我全是聽(tīng)他說(shuō)的”，“他把這件事全都告訴我了”，“他把這件事的底細(xì)原原本本告訴我了”。No matter words and phrases are used in translation the message of source language is conveyed clearly,only in different forms.

（3）Mr.Bennet made no answer.

For this simple sentence,there are also different versions: “本內(nèi)特先生沒(méi)有搭理他”，“本內(nèi)特先生沒(méi)有答話”，“本內(nèi)特先生沒(méi)有吭聲”，“本內(nèi)特先生沒(méi)有回答他”，“本內(nèi)特先生沒(méi)有答腔”，“本內(nèi)特先生沒(méi)有答話”，“本內(nèi)特先生沒(méi)有理睬她”。Here,the key words in the seven versions can be divided into two groups, “搭理”“理睬”can be one group,which shows Mr.Bennet’s mood and the attitudes he takes towards his wife,while“答話”“吭聲”“回答”“答腔”“答話”this group are neutral ones,only reveals Mr.Bennet’s one action.

4 Conclusion

Based on the comparison of the above seven different versions,we can find that five of them are more similar than the other two in forms.All the versions convey the message of the original text,and we can say it achieved the equivalent effect of showing the audience the image of the main characterthrough speaker’s mannerofspeaking,the life background and psychological characteristics. Therefore,we can summarize that for the literature translation the most important thing is to achieve dynamic equivalence.In some cases,formal equivalence should serve dynamic equivalence.Dynamic equivalence is translator’s main pursuit but not the only purpose.

［1］Peter Newmark.A textbook of translation[M].Shanghai foreign language education press,2005.

［2］Jeremy Munday.Introducing translation studies:Theories and Applications[M].Shanghai foreign language education press,2010.

［3］馮慶華.實(shí)用翻譯教程[M].3版.上海外語(yǔ)教育出版社,2010.