法律翻譯對(duì)等理論延伸

翻譯對(duì)等理論研究延伸高級(jí)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(duì)“對(duì)等”理論研究——基于語(yǔ)料庫(kù)數(shù)據(jù)分析根據(jù)出現(xiàn)的時(shí)間以及總數(shù)，上述“對(duì)等”術(shù)語(yǔ)集能夠大致呈現(xiàn)中國(guó)當(dāng)代翻譯“對(duì)等”研究由語(yǔ)言向文化及其他多元視角轉(zhuǎn)移的歷時(shí)趨勢(shì)。同時(shí)，對(duì)等理論具有傳遞性、生發(fā)性。這些詞組型術(shù)語(yǔ)是奈達(dá)“對(duì)等”譯論跨語(yǔ)傳播的積極成果，是基于新術(shù)語(yǔ)的理論傳承與創(chuàng)新的體現(xiàn)。此外，術(shù)語(yǔ)“對(duì)等”的跨語(yǔ)應(yīng)用對(duì)源語(yǔ)術(shù)語(yǔ)equivalence的概念內(nèi)涵有進(jìn)一步充實(shí)作用。這是術(shù)語(yǔ)翻譯理論生發(fā)功能的另一體現(xiàn)。InotherwordsLikethedivisionoflanguageintodiscreteareas,thetermequivalenceisadoptedinthisbookforthesakeofconvenience–becausemosttranslatorsareusedtoitratherthanbecauseithasanytheoreticalstatus.Itisusedherewiththeprovisothatalthoughequivalencecanusuallybeobtainedtosomeextent,itisinfluencedbyavarietyoflinguisticandculturalfactorsandisthereforealwaysrelative.對(duì)等（equivalent）只是一個(gè)相對(duì)的概念，不對(duì)等才是絕對(duì)的，完全的對(duì)等是不存在的。

法律翻譯具體實(shí)踐中存在的主要問(wèn)題

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

Ageneralproblemconstantlyoccurredinlegaltranslation：

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

集中在“法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的不完全對(duì)等現(xiàn)象及翻譯”問(wèn)題

上。法律專門術(shù)語(yǔ)是用來(lái)準(zhǔn)確表達(dá)特有的法律概

念的專門用語(yǔ),法律翻譯中的“專門術(shù)語(yǔ)不一致”

(terminologicalincongruence)是指在法律翻譯過(guò)

程中(即從源語(yǔ)到目的語(yǔ)的轉(zhuǎn)換過(guò)程中)源語(yǔ)某一

專門術(shù)語(yǔ)的內(nèi)涵或外延在目的語(yǔ)中發(fā)生了變化并

導(dǎo)致了該術(shù)語(yǔ)在譯前譯后出現(xiàn)差異的情形。

與法律概念有關(guān)的各種不對(duì)等情形解讀

（王建：2013）1.這種不對(duì)等有時(shí)是語(yǔ)言方面空缺。比如assembly，assemblyman，president，Congress，Senator，lynch（私刑）等詞在英國(guó)法律中并不存在；相反，Lords，LordChancellor（御前大臣，大法官，上議院議長(zhǎng)），CourtofKing’sBench（王座法庭）,PrivyCouncil，Suitor，Chancellor等詞在美國(guó)法律中并不存在。2.這種不對(duì)等有時(shí)是語(yǔ)言方面的差異，即同一個(gè)指稱有不同的表達(dá)方式。例如大陸地區(qū)“勞教所”、“刑事警察”、“夫妻”和“再婚”在我國(guó)臺(tái)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(shù)語(yǔ)稱謂不同的情況在術(shù)語(yǔ)同一個(gè)法系的英國(guó)和美國(guó)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(duì)等還體現(xiàn)在同一個(gè)符號(hào)所指稱的對(duì)象不同

dominion民法：完全所有權(quán)；國(guó)際法：主權(quán)

estoppel

合同法：不得反悔、允諾禁反言；刑訴法：禁止翻供。

By-law英國(guó)：地方法規(guī)；美國(guó)：公司章程4.這種不對(duì)等，有時(shí)是兩種語(yǔ)言系統(tǒng)中有類似的指稱物（equivalent），但該類似指稱在兩種語(yǔ)言中并不具有對(duì)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(chéng)實(shí)信用）與普通法系的goodfaith（誠(chéng)實(shí)信用）存在下列區(qū)別：前一概念包括過(guò)失，后一概念卻不包括過(guò)失；前者范圍更廣，包括信任關(guān)系以及商業(yè)交易中的最低的行為道德準(zhǔn)則（StandardsofBusinessConduct）,這可能是因大陸法系國(guó)家的“法律”與政治和道德關(guān)系密切之故。

與法律概念有關(guān)的各種不對(duì)等情形解讀

（王建：2013）Examples法律術(shù)語(yǔ)“物證”如何翻譯？1998年出版的《中華人民共和國(guó)法律法規(guī)漢英對(duì)照詞語(yǔ)手冊(cè)》譯成：materialevidence評(píng)議：望文生義，實(shí)則生繆——并非字面完全對(duì)等就是正確的翻譯的

materialevidence：evidencehavingsomelogicalconnectionwiththeconsequentialfactsortheissues”（Black’sLawDictionary,7th.edition），其意為“與案件的事實(shí)或結(jié)果存在邏輯關(guān)系的證據(jù)”，它既可能是言詞證據(jù)也可能是實(shí)物證據(jù)。而漢語(yǔ)中的“物證”在英語(yǔ)中是另有專門的法律術(shù)語(yǔ)與之對(duì)應(yīng)的，這就是“realevidence”。

我國(guó)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(gòu)成的客觀方面是行為人持刀撬窗入室后進(jìn)行行竊的，類似我國(guó)認(rèn)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(jìn)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(gè)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(kuò)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(gè)時(shí)間要素；３有些制定法把「意圖犯重罪」要件擴(kuò)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(qiáng)調(diào)夜間侵入他人住宅并行竊，與我國(guó)的“非法侵入住宅罪”在法律概念（該罪在我國(guó)刑法上規(guī)定：客觀方面表現(xiàn)為行為人實(shí)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(duì)等,實(shí)際上體現(xiàn)出一種法律文化的差異。筆者認(rèn)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(yǔ)言轉(zhuǎn)換的過(guò)程，而是在法律機(jī)制中進(jìn)行的交際活動(dòng)。法律術(shù)語(yǔ)依據(jù)對(duì)等程度可以劃分為接近對(duì)等、部分對(duì)等、不對(duì)等三類(SusanSarecvic1997:113)。法律翻譯同其他翻譯一樣，是一種交際活動(dòng)(杜金榜2004:11-14)。但是，法律翻譯不同于其他翻譯的一個(gè)顯著特點(diǎn)正在于它的可操作性，即在跨法系交際中，不僅要在語(yǔ)言文字層操作，更重要的是對(duì)語(yǔ)言表象背后的沒(méi)有用文字表述出來(lái)的法律文化和法律規(guī)約要有清楚的認(rèn)識(shí)。李克興：法律文本靜態(tài)對(duì)等翻譯該人為香港理工大學(xué)翻譯研究中心教授，長(zhǎng)期從事法律英語(yǔ)翻譯研究。該人曾發(fā)表論文，在評(píng)價(jià)了動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等、異化與歸化、功能主義、語(yǔ)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(duì)等翻譯策略，認(rèn)為法律文本是靜態(tài)的元、信息型文本、模式化語(yǔ)言，讀者群較為單一，應(yīng)采取嚴(yán)格的翻譯準(zhǔn)則。“靜態(tài)對(duì)等翻譯雖然與直譯或語(yǔ)義翻譯相似，但是它并不等同于直譯或語(yǔ)義翻譯，更不等同于“死譯”。她的內(nèi)涵和外延都比直譯或語(yǔ)義翻譯更豐富、更寬泛但又更嚴(yán)格。真正的靜態(tài)對(duì)等的譯本要求深層意思、表層意思、語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)、風(fēng)格、格式與原文的這些方面完全對(duì)等，還要求譯文最大程度地再現(xiàn)原文作者的每一個(gè)寫作意圖?！盓xample任何人籍恐嚇