外国语言学及应用语言学毕业论文.doc

外国语言学及应用语言学毕业论文Contents摘 要iAbstractiiiContentsvAbbreviationsviiIntroduction10.1 Application of FE Theory to GWR Translation20.2 Requirements of the C-E GWR Translation60.3 Structure of the Thesis7Chapter 1 Functional Equivalence Theory101.1Two Basic Orientations in Translation111.2 Formal Equivalence121.3 Functional Equivalence131.4 Functional Equivalence over Formal Equivalence151.5 Relevant Theories in China17Chapter 2 Analysis of the 2009 Report202.1 Stylistic Features of the 2009 Report212.1.1 Lexical Features222.1.2 Syntactic Features232.1.3 Rhetorical Features242.2 Functions of the 2009 Report272.2.1 Three Main Functions of Language272.2.2 Functions of the 2009 Report282.2.3 Theoretical Basis for the Translation of GWR292.3 Chinglishthe Product of Formal Equivalence302.3.1 Chinese-Colored English and Pidgin English302.3.2 Chinglish322.3.3 Reasons for Chinglish in GWR Translation332.4 Researches of Official Documents35Chapter 3 Adaptation of Strategies at Different Levels403.1Translation at Lexical Level403. 1.1 Category Words403.1.2 Political Terms423.1.3 Collocation and Diction473.1.4 Tautology, High-sounding and Excessive Words503.2 Translation At Syntactic Level543.2.1 Solutions to Zero-Subject Sentences543.2.2 Rearrangement of Word Order583. 2.3 Conversion of Parts of Speech603.3 Translation at Textual Level623. 3.1Cohesion633. 3.2 Combination663.3.3 Division67Conclusion70Bibliography73Acknowledgements77攻读学位期间主要的研究成果目录7878AbbreviationsFE: functional equivalenceC-E: Chinese to EnglishGWR: Government Work ReportSL: Source LanguageTL: Target LanguageST: Source TextTT: Target TextM.A. Thesis IntroductionIntroductionIs it necessary and possible to apply the FE theory into the practice of GWR translation?To answer this question, it will be necessary to have a brief look at the core of the FE theory first (the systematic introduction is available in chapter One). The FE theory focuses on the response of the readership and the naturalness of the target language. Its maximal degree of equivalence is such that “the readers of a translated text should be able to appreciate it essentially the same manner as the original readership did” (Nida 1993:118). It aims to produce the “closest, natural equivalent to the source language”. So the question can be interpreted as “should we, in the translation of GWR, take into account the readers response and communication effect?”The answer to this question is a definite “yes”. Firstly, there are two extremes in translation. For one thing, translators can go so far in smoothness and elegance as to deviate from the original texts. On the other hand, translators follow too strictly the original text and tend to adopt word-for-word, sentence-for-sentence translation. The latter is the major concern of the GWR translation whose quality relates directly to the international image of our government and our country. The product of the latter practice is the hard-to-digest Chinglish which bears strong Chinese flavors and which can cause misunderstanding and misconception of our government policies. Secondly, expectations from the target readership are another concern of translators. Generally speaking, serious official documents never seem to appeal to ordinary readers, especially when they face choices of other reading materials. To foreign readers, the material should be nothing more than written in their own mother language. No one is willing to bother himself in decoding an awkward Chinese-styled translation. Thirdly, the specialties of C-E GWR translation should be brought to the notice of translators. As a kind of publicity, the GWR has its own features. On the premise of maintaining its political faithfulness, translators can make efforts to make their translation more idiomatic and smoother. Translators can even do some pre-translation work to ensure the communication effect. Whats more, faithfulness should not be contained in formal correspondence. Lastly, previous researchers have summarized the requirements of GWR translation, namely, accuracy, continuity and adaptation, and completeness. Only when translation work is done under the guidance of FE theory, can these requirements be fulfilled. As an introduction, this part also makes a convey of the content of each chapter.0.1 Application of FE Theory to GWR Translation This section attempts to justify the application of FE theory into GWR translation. Discussions are made at the following aspects, namely, two polars of translation, expectations from the target readership and specialties of GWR translationFirstly, there are two polars in translation, i.e. the original text and the readership. The translation standards are summarized in Yanfus three-word principle, namely, faithfulness, smoothness (readability) and elegance. Reaching these standards is by no means an easy task, since the standards require the translation to be smooth and readable and to express fully the meaning of the original text. Generally speaking, there are two extremes translators must try to avoid in C-E translation. On the one hand, translators can go so far in smoothness and elegance as to miss the theme of the original text. On the other hand, translators follow strictly the original text and mechanically translate each word and sentence, making the translation awkward and hard to understand. Versions with either problem fail to meet the requirement of Yanfus three-word principle. In the translation of official documents like the 2009 Report, the latter problem is much more common. The reason includes both internal and external ones. First, translators of GWR tend to adopt mechanical and servile translation for fearing that they may make political mistakes. Secondly, official documents are of great political and diplomatic significance, which requires the translation versions to be accurate in content and tight in wording. Thirdly, the translation of this kind of material is usually urgent, thus leaving little time for the translation work. Some translations are required to be finished in such a hurry that translators even have little time for revision. (Wang Nongsheng, 2003.)During the last decades, great strides have been made in translation and more new issues, new words and new formulations have been settled. However, there is still room for the improvement of translation. To promote the quality of translation, we can make efforts in various aspects. One of the most difficult problems to settle is Clinglish. Chinglish, a product of the second tendency (following too strictly the form of the original text), is difficult for its foreign receptors to understand and affects the communication effect.Secondly, expectations from the target readership must be taken into account. Readers of literary translation are prepared to come across some cultural differences in the target text (TT) because they have deliberately chosen such translated versions for the interest of foreign culture. However, expectations from readers of GWR are quite another story. They will very probably skip that hard-to digest English version, and read something to their taste, since no readership is willing to bother himself in decoding translations. To them, reading materials should be nothing more than written in their mother tongue. Unlike literature works, which can be “perishless” and appreciated over time, and light entertainment copies, which enjoy tremendous popularity among common readerships, GWR often draws little attention from the public. On the one hand, the GWR, formal in style and serious in content, is a kind of official document which concerns mainly about politics and economy. On the other hand, the report features long parallel structures and sentences with no subjects, and its words, embedded in the profound Chinese culture, are of Chinese characteristics. Even for an average Chinese reader, it is often too dull to read over a cup of tea. Readers from another culture have neither time nor desire to bother themselves in reading, let alone the awkward Chinese-styled translation.Thirdly, the specialty of C-E translation of GWR should be brought to the notice of translators. As a kind of publicity material, the translation of GWR has its own features. Most C-E translation only has to fulfill the requirement of being faithful to the original text, while GWR translation must achieve intended communication effect. Harold, the forerunner of American transmission, puts forward the five elements in communication. He maintains that all communication process should follow such a pattern: Whosays whatin which channelto whomwith what effect. The “effect” here (the communication effect) is the response of the readers from different cultures when information reaches its destination, and is the testing stone of any communication activity (Zhangjian, 2001). If the information sent by the communicator achieves little (sometimes even opposite) effect or fails to be accepted by its receptor, the translation is then considered meaningless and worthless. In the same way, C-E translation of GWR should also take into consideration the communication effect and the readerships feedback. English translations that emphasize political significance while overlook the intended communication effect will definitely be refused by the foreign audience. Li xin (2001) suggests pretranslation that some adaptations at the linguistic level should be made on the original text, such as addition, deletion, reorganization of the structure and even the whole passage. All these are done for the readerships convenience. Eugene Nida also expresses similar ideas. He argues that translating means translating the meaning and translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of the source language message, first in terms of meaning then in terms of style. (Nida& Tabler, 1982:12). From this definition , we can get three points: (a) what translators want to translate is message.(b) because of cultural and linguistic difference, the source text and the target text can only achieve the closest equivalence.(c) translation should be the most natural equivalence. The three points together aims to achieve one goal: “the response of the target receptor to the translation should be substantially the same as that of the original reader of the source text.” (ibid, 13)In GWR translation, translators should not only made translation “faithful” to the source text but also take into consideration its content and style, the readers response, and its communication effect, and adopt flexible techniques. Yanfu has set a good example for us. His translation of “Evolution and Ethic and Other Essays” as “天演论” is short in length but concise and to the point. His translation of “Survival of the Fittest” into “物竞天择，适者生存” is also well-accepted since, literarily longer it is, the translation not only fully conveys the connotation of the core but achieve a beauty of structure. His translations are well received and beneficial to the progress of society. From these examples, we know that faithfulness is not constrained in a formal equivalence.0.2 Requirements of the C-E GWR Translation According to previous researches of GWR translation, there are generally three requirements for the translation, namely, accuracy, continuity and adaptation, and completenessFirst, being accuracy both in content and language is the prime requirement of the GWR translation. Inaccuracy in language will not only lead to misunderstanding among target readers but also affect or even distort the content. As an authorized official documentation delivered at the Peoples Congress, GWR is of great social and political significance and draws tremendous attention from audiences both at home and abroad. Therefore, every word, phrase and sentence is carefully weighed and repeatedly revised before going to press. However, because of the differences in culture and language, it is impossible to achieve absolute accuracy in translation. Translators, however, can still make attempts to bridge the gap by adopting various translation techniques. In a word, the principle cannot be too well emphasized in C-E translation.The second requirement is continuity and adaptation. This seemingly self-contradictory principle has its own justifications. First, translation should be continuous. Partly as a summary of the previous achievements, the GWR inevitably carries some fixed expressions of the previous Report, whose translation cannot be changed at will because it is associated with the international image of China. Any change of its expression usually cause inconvenience to the foreigners and thus must undergo the specialists discussions. Secondly, with the deepening of reform and opening-up, many new sayings in some fields will keep surging into the vocabulary list of official document. Experts may, as times goes by, find that some of the fixed sayings are not adequately-translated, and, after discussion among authorized translators, they will replace them with better ones. A typical example is “龙头企业”in the 2009 Report. “龙头”, frequently used in several GWR, was first translated as “locative(火车头) in 2002 (rather than “dragons head enterprise) and then changed into “pace-setting” in 2009. Therefore, it is the translators duty to find the equivalent expression in the target language and, even, in time of need, invent the closest counterpart.Thirdly, translators should ensure the completeness of the translation. The GWR, as we know, is both a summary of Chinas achievements in the previous years and a plan for the following years. So it carries much information and its writing is highly condensed. To interpret its connotation fully, background information should be added when necessary.0.3 Structure of the Thesis The paper makes a tentative study of the 2009 Report from the view of Nidas FE theory in the hope that it can offer some guidance to related official document translation. The structures of the paper are as follows: The introduction discusses the necessity and possibility of applying functional equivalence to GWR translation and lists some requirements for its translation. Also, this part makes a convey of the content of each chapter. Chapter One introduces the FE theory. There are two basic orientations in translation, namely formal equivalence and dynamic /functional equivalence and the former enjoys priority over the latter. The FE theory undergoes a development in China and is put into the translation practice. Chapter Two makes a detailed analysis of stylistic features and functions of the 2009 government work report, reviews the related research of official document translation and points out a wrong tendency in the practiceChinglish. This enables us to have a better understanding of GWR and its translation. Chapter Three tries to settle the question of how can translators make the translation the closest natural equivalent to the source language message. Analyses are made at three levels respectively: lexical level, syntactic level and textual level. The final part summarizes the whole paper and points out the meaning and limitations of the study.To be brief, the structure of the paper can be simplified into a set of questions1. Is it necessary and possible to apply the FE theory into the GWR translation?2. What is FE theory?3. What is GWR?4. How can translators make the translation the closest equivalent to the source language message?M.A. Thesis Chapter 1 Functional Equivalent TheoryChapter 1Functional Equivalence TheoryA systematic introduction of FE theory can lay the foundation for the exploration in the following chapters. So this chapter tries to answer the question of what FE theory is.According to Nida, there are two basic orientations in translation, one is formal equivalence, and the other is functional/dynamic equivalence. The latter enjoys priority over former and between these two extremes there are some intervening grades. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content and tends to use gloss translation. However, there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the target text since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience. Whats more, the product of strict formal correspondence is Chinglish or even distorted clutters of words, which will cause misunderstanding among the foreign receptors. Therefore, this is what translators must try to avoid in the translation of GWR whose quality is directly related to the image of our government and our country. Functional/dynamic equivalence lays emphasis on the response of readers and aim to produce “the closest, natural equivalent to the source language”. Absolute equivalent response can never be achieved due to different cultural and historical backgrounds, so Nida put functional equivalence into two levels according to the degree of adequacy: the minimal equivalence and the maximum equivalence.It takes a long time before the FE theory finally reaches maturity, but, as there is no universally authentic theory, it still meets challenges and criticisms. Certain serious restrictions of a cultural and a linguistic nature confront anyone who undertakes to produce a translation with a considerable degree of dynamic equivalence (Nida, 2004: 176). Does FE theory enjoy equal importance in text of other type? Can the test of the response of the readers work all the time? Actually, Nidas translation theory has been a heated top