法律翻譯對等理論延伸

翻譯對等理論研究延伸高級法商翻譯課程劉云龍、張萌2016年10月8日RogerT.Bell:translationistheexpressioninanotherlanguage(ortargetlanguage)ofwhathasbeenexpressedinanother,sourcelanguage,preservingsemanticandstylisticequivalences.

EquivalenceTheoryTheconceptofequivalenceisquitecontroversial.Scholarshavedifferentexplorationsabouttranslationequivalence.Amongtheseexplorations,iwillexplaintheequivalencetheoriesofNidaandJinDi.一、EquivalencetheoryofNidaNidaisknownfordynamicequivalence.Dynamicequivalencederivesfrom“theprincipleofequivalenceeffect”.Inatranslationthattrytoproducedynamicequivalence,thetranslatorissupposedtochangehisfocusfrommatchingthereceptor-languagemessagewiththesourcelanguagemessagetoadynamicrelationshipNida：“therelationshipbetweenreceptormessageshouldbesubstantiallythesameasthatwhichexistedbetweentheoriginalreceptorsandthemessage”.“onewayofdefiningaDE(Dynamicequivalence)translationistodescribeitastheclosestnaturalequivalencetothesource-languagemessage”Thistypeofdefinitioncontainsthreeterms:(1)Equivalent,whichpointstothesource-languagemessage(2)Natural,whichpointstothereceptorlanguage(3)Closest,whichbindsthetwoorientationstogetheronthebasisofthehighestdegreeofapproximation(1)Thetermequivalencefocusonthesource-languagemessage.Thecontentofsourcelanguagemessageisimportant.Themessageofsourcelanguageisthestartingpointandthecheckingstandardoftranslation.Forexample:滅火器=fireextinguisherTheChinese滅火器andtheEnglishFireextinguisherrefertothesameobject,andbothofthemareinaccordancewiththeirlanguagerespectively.(2)Theterm“natural”isthekeypointofDE.Nidathinksthewordnaturalisapplicabletothreeareasofthecommunicativeprocess.Foranaturalrenderingmustfitthereceptorlanguageandcultureasawholeisanessentialingredientinanystylisticallyacceptablerendering.Languageandculturearecloselyrelatedtoeachother.Alanguageisalwaysapartofcultureandthemeaningofanytextrefersdirectlyorindirectlytothecorrespondingculture.Finally,wordsonlyhavemeaningintermsofthecorrespondingculture.Nida:“Bilingualcompetencehasalmostalwaysbeenregardedasanessentialrequirementfortranslators……Fortrulysuccessfultranslating,biculturalismisevenmoreimportantthanbilingualism,sincewordsonlyhavemeaningsintermofculturesinwhichtheyfunction”.(3)Theterm“closest”isthecombinationoftheabovetwoelements.AsNidaclaims,itbindsthetwoorientationstogetheronthebasisofthehighestdegreeofapproximation.Theequivalencebetweenthesourcelanguageandthetargetlanguageisnotalwayspossible.Thuswhatatranslatorcandoistobalancethetwotoapossiblehighestdegreeofapproximation.Nidaoffersthreefundamentalcriteriawhicharebasictotheevaluationofalltranslating,andindifferentwayshelptodeterminetherelativemeritofparticulartranslations.Theseare(1)generalefficiencyofthecommunicationprocess.(2)comprehensionoftheintent(3)equivalenceofresponse.二、EquivalenceTheoryofJinDiTherearethreeimportanttheoriesinJinDi’stheory：1、Theconceptofthereceptor.Thetheorystressesthereceptorofthetranslatedtext,butitdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthereceptorismoreimportantthantheauthor.InsteadoffocusingonthecomparisonoftheSLtextandtheTLtext,thetheoryofequivalenteffectstressesthecomparisonbetweenthetwocommunicatingprocess.Thetranslatingprocessisaccomplishedonlywhenthetranslatedtextisacceptedbythereaders.Otherwise,thetranslationisinvain.Allcommunicationistwoway.2、Theconceptoftheeffect.Itmeansthatthereceptorisacceptedbythetransferredinformationinthetranslatedtext,fromunderstandingtotheexperienceandthentofeelings,thesameoralmostthesameasthoseofthesourcetextreaders.Inthecommunicativetranslationofvocativetexts,equivalenteffectisnotonlydesirable,butalsoessential.Itisthecriterionbywhichtheeffectiveness,andthereforethevalue,ofthetranslationofnotices,instructions,publicity……istobeassessed.Effectisthebasicelementofavocativetext3、Theconceptoftheequivalence.Equivalenceisamorescientifictermthanfaithfulness.Theformerismoreobjectiveandimpartial,referringtothequalityofthetranslatedtext,whilethelatterismoresubjective,referringtothetranslator’sattitude.Theequivalenteffectscontainmanyaspects,includinglexical,semantic,pragmaticlevel,subtletiesandovertoneswhichareimpliedincultureandthought.Itisanoverallequivalentbetweentwolanguagesandcultures.Pragmaticequivalence：Tounderstandpragmaticequivalence,oneneedstoknowsomethingaboutthepragmaticmeaning.Itreflectssuchinformationaboutthespeakerasidentity,age,socialstatus,geographicallocation,attitude,intentionandpersonality,themainpurposesofthecommunication-informationexchange,andtheunderstandabilityofcommunicatingcontents.Whentalkingaboutpragmaticsintranslation,professorHeZiranthinksthatpragmaticsdeals,ontheonehand,withpragmalinguistics,withthecontextwhichisformallyencodedinthestructureofalanguage,ontheotherhand,withsociopragmatics,withthelanguageusage,understandandappropriatenessinthesocialandculturalcontext.Themaintaskofatranslatoristoconveytothereaderallthepossiblemeaningsofmessage.Sincemeaningsarecoatedinagivencontext,itisquitedifficultforawriterorspeakertobringoutthebothintendedmeaninginthecontextandcultural,linguisticaspectsoftheoriginalmessage.Thepragmaticsapproachtotranslationcanbeadoptedtohelpsolvethisproblembystrivingforthepragmaticsequivalenceeffectbetweenthesourceandtargetmessage.AccordingtoProfHe,thepragmaticsequivalenceeffectaimsattranslatingmeaninginfull,takingfullaccountofdifferencesbetweenSLandTLinpragmalinguisticsandsociopragmatics.Pragmalingusticsintranslationisrefertothestudyofthepragmaticsforceorlanguageuseinthecontextfromtheviewpointoflinguisticssources.Pragmaticsforce,alsocalledillocutionaryforceinspeechacttheoryofpragmatics,istheintendedmeaningforagivenmessage.ProfHedistinguishestwomainkindsofpragmaticsforce,theimplicitonewhichisbelowthesurfaceandunstated,andtheexplicitonewhichisonthesurfaceandstated.Hethinksitisimportanttoidentitytheimplicitforcesastheyappearintheirvarioussocialcontexts,forfrequentlyapparentintentionofamessageisnotthesameastheactualintent.Pragmalingulisticsintranslationcontainschoosingtheappropriateformsoflanguagetoconveytheintendedmeaningorpragmaticsforceofthegivenmassage.However,anequationbetweenlinguisticformsandcommunicativefunctionsshouldnotbeassumedwhenoneisengagedintranslation.Sociopragmaticsreferstothepragmaticstudieswhichexaminetheconditionsonlanguageusethatderivefromthesocialandculturalsituation.Itdependsonthetranslator’sbeliefaswellashissocialandcross-culturalknowledge.ThesocialpragmaticsequivalenteffectintranslationusuallyoccurswhenthetranslatorholdsacorrectconceptionofthedifferentsocialinstitutionsorculturalbackgroundsbetweentheSLandTL.Culturalfactorisanindispensablepartforthesocialpragmaticsequivalenteffectintranslation,whichisthefocusoftranslation.ProfessorWangZuoliangsaid“atranslatormustbearealculturist.Itissaidthetranslatormustgraspthetwolanguages,indeed,hemust.Butwithouttheunderstandingofthesocialculturalconnotationinonelanguagenoonecanreallymasterthelanguage”.Duffholdsthat“translationistheprocessofconveyingthemessageacrosslinguisticandculturalbarriers,itisaneminentlycommunicativeactivity”Luhongmeievensays“asfarastranslationisconcerned,translatingaSLtextisakindoftranslatingSLculturalandhabitofthecountrywheretheSLisspoken”.LiumiqingviewstheculturalfactorsastheoneoftheessentialelementsamongthetraditionalChinesetranslation.翻譯理論界對“對等”理論研究——基于語料庫數(shù)據(jù)分析根據(jù)出現(xiàn)的時間以及總數(shù)，上述“對等”術語集能夠大致呈現(xiàn)中國當代翻譯“對等”研究由語言向文化及其他多元視角轉(zhuǎn)移的歷時趨勢。同時，對等理論具有傳遞性、生發(fā)性。這些詞組型術語是奈達“對等”譯論跨語傳播的積極成果，是基于新術語的理論傳承與創(chuàng)新的體現(xiàn)。此外，術語“對等”的跨語應用對源語術語equivalence的概念內(nèi)涵有進一步充實作用。這是術語翻譯理論生發(fā)功能的另一體現(xiàn)。InotherwordsLikethedivisionoflanguageintodiscreteareas,thetermequivalenceisadoptedinthisbookforthesakeofconvenience–becausemosttranslatorsareusedtoitratherthanbecauseithasanytheoreticalstatus.Itisusedherewiththeprovisothatalthoughequivalencecanusuallybeobtainedtosomeextent,itisinfluencedbyavarietyoflinguisticandculturalfactorsandisthereforealwaysrelative.對等（equivalent）只是一個相對的概念，不對等才是絕對的，完全的對等是不存在的。

法律翻譯具體實踐中存在的主要問題

（金朝武，胡愛平,2000:45）可歸納為以下幾種：1.拼寫和語法錯誤；2.省譯、增譯和望文生義；3.術語翻譯不妥；4.譯文文體不當；5.對原文理解不透；6.語言修養(yǎng)欠佳；7.法律文化差異引起的錯誤。

Ageneralproblemconstantlyoccurredinlegaltranslation：

Non-equivalence（lexical/terminological,semantic,syntactic（collocational）,textual,pragmatic,stylistic,cultural,etc.）SusanSarcevic:TerminologicalincongruenceSusanSarcevic關于法律名詞術語翻譯的理論主要

集中在“法律術語的不完全對等現(xiàn)象及翻譯”問題

上。法律專門術語是用來準確表達特有的法律概

念的專門用語,法律翻譯中的“專門術語不一致”

(terminologicalincongruence)是指在法律翻譯過

程中(即從源語到目的語的轉(zhuǎn)換過程中)源語某一

專門術語的內(nèi)涵或外延在目的語中發(fā)生了變化并

導致了該術語在譯前譯后出現(xiàn)差異的情形。

與法律概念有關的各種不對等情形解讀

（王建：2013）1.這種不對等有時是語言方面空缺。比如assembly，assemblyman，president，Congress，Senator，lynch（私刑）等詞在英國法律中并不存在；相反，Lords，LordChancellor（御前大臣，大法官，上議院議長），CourtofKing’sBench（王座法庭）,PrivyCouncil，Suitor，Chancellor等詞在美國法律中并不存在。2.這種不對等有時是語言方面的差異，即同一個指稱有不同的表達方式。例如大陸地區(qū)“勞教所”、“刑事警察”、“夫妻”和“再婚”在我國臺灣地區(qū)分別稱為“升教所”、“刑事”、“翁某”和“接腳”。這種因地域差異而造成術語稱謂不同的情況在術語同一個法系的英國和美國也不例外，其各自的法律發(fā)展受到不同因素的影響。如“原告”一詞，在離婚訴訟中稱為petitioner；一般民事訴訟稱為plaintiff或complainant3.不對等還體現(xiàn)在同一個符號所指稱的對象不同

dominion民法：完全所有權；國際法：主權

estoppel

合同法：不得反悔、允諾禁反言；刑訴法：禁止翻供。

By-law英國：地方法規(guī)；美國：公司章程4.這種不對等，有時是兩種語言系統(tǒng)中有類似的指稱物（equivalent），但該類似指稱在兩種語言中并不具有對等的概念或意義功能，即在意義層面具有一定的偏差。比如，大陸法系bonafides（誠實信用）與普通法系的goodfaith（誠實信用）存在下列區(qū)別：前一概念包括過失，后一概念卻不包括過失；前者范圍更廣，包括信任關系以及商業(yè)交易中的最低的行為道德準則（StandardsofBusinessConduct）,這可能是因大陸法系國家的“法律”與政治和道德關系密切之故。

與法律概念有關的各種不對等情形解讀

（王建：2013）Examples法律術語“物證”如何翻譯？1998年出版的《中華人民共和國法律法規(guī)漢英對照詞語手冊》譯成：materialevidence評議：望文生義，實則生繆——并非字面完全對等就是正確的翻譯的

materialevidence：evidencehavingsomelogicalconnectionwiththeconsequentialfactsortheissues”（Black’sLawDictionary,7th.edition），其意為“與案件的事實或結果存在邏輯關系的證據(jù)”，它既可能是言詞證據(jù)也可能是實物證據(jù)。而漢語中的“物證”在英語中是另有專門的法律術語與之對應的，這就是“realevidence”。

我國刑法上“非法侵入住宅罪”如何翻譯？有人直接譯成burglary（thebreakingandenteringofthedwellinghouseofanotherperson）殊不知burglary一罪，其犯罪構成的客觀方面是行為人持刀撬窗入室后進行行竊的，類似我國認定的盜竊罪。元照英美法詞典解釋burglary為：

(1)普通法夜盜罪指懷著犯重罪意圖在夜里打開并且進入他人住宅的行為。(2)制定法夜盜罪與普通法夜盜罪相比，制定法夜盜罪在三個要件方面有所區(qū)別：１現(xiàn)代制定法已把住宅〔dwelling〕這一概念擴大到工廠車間、商店、辦公處以及一切建筑物；２多數(shù)制定法取消了「夜里」這個時間要素；３有些制定法把「意圖犯重罪」要件擴大為「意圖犯重偷盜罪或輕偷盜罪或任何重罪」。Burglary在普通法法域還強調(diào)夜間侵入他人住宅并行竊，與我國的“非法侵入住宅罪”在法律概念（該罪在我國刑法上規(guī)定：客觀方面表現(xiàn)為行為人實施非法入侵他人住宅的行為，或經(jīng)主人要求退出而拒不退出的行為）上并不完全對等,實際上體現(xiàn)出一種法律文化的差異。筆者認為譯成crimeofhousebreaking或者釋譯成unlawfulintrusionintoanotherperson’sresidence更為穩(wěn)妥。SusanSarcevic

在其著作NewApproachtoLegalTranslation

中指出法律翻譯不僅是語言轉(zhuǎn)換的過程，而是在法律機制中進行的交際活動。法律術語依據(jù)對等程度可以劃分為接近對等、部分對等、不對等三類(SusanSarecvic1997:113)。法律翻譯同其他翻譯一樣，是一種交際活動(杜金榜2004:11-14)。但是，法律翻譯不同于其他翻譯的一個顯著特點正在于它的可操作性，即在跨法系交際中，不僅要在語言文字層操作，更重要的是對語言表象背后的沒有用文字表述出來的法律文化和法律規(guī)約要有清楚的認識。李克興：法律文本靜態(tài)對等翻譯該人為香港理工大學翻譯研究中心教授，長期從事法律英語翻譯研究。該人曾發(fā)表論文，在評價了動態(tài)對等、異化與歸化、功能主義、語義翻譯和傳意/交際翻譯之后，提出適合法律文本的靜態(tài)對等翻譯策略，認為法律文本是靜態(tài)的元、信息型文本、模式化語言，讀者群較為單一，應采取嚴格的翻譯準則。“靜態(tài)對等翻譯雖然與直譯或語義翻譯相似，但是它并不等同于直譯或語義翻譯，更不等同于“死譯”。她的內(nèi)涵和外延都比直譯或語義翻譯更豐富、更寬泛但又更嚴格。真正的靜態(tài)對等的譯本要求深層意思、表層意思、語言結構、風格、格式與原文的這些方面完全對等，還要求譯文最大程度地再現(xiàn)原文作者的每一個寫作意圖?！盓xample任何人籍恐嚇