#2 Sept 23 2009 - Studies on Translation Theories
Linguistic Approaches Nida, E. (2004). Principles of correspondence. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2 ed., pp. 153-167). New York: Routledge.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Copyright 2009
NTNU GITI BLOG
All rights reserved | Powered by
Blogger
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress Theme by EZwpthemes
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress Theme by EZwpthemes
1 意見:
In terms of Nida’s work, several perspectives seem interesting to me.
Firstly, it seems to me that it is necessary and also important for him termed his theory as a ‘scientific approach’ in terms of the development of translation studies. As the discussion on translation has long been viewed as a byproduct of literature, his effort on drawing a new framework into this study is consequential. Though his application of generative-transformative grammar into the translation process might not be a ‘handy’ tool for the translators, at least, the ‘analysis—transfer—restructuring’ process has brought some general understanding on the process of translation, which makes it no longer something hidden in the ‘black-box’ of the translator.
Secondly, the notion of formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence are also interesting. For he has drawn what is traditionally source-text oriented viewpoint to the target-text oriented one. What does arouse my attention is his term of ‘naturalness’. For Nida, naturalness should be achieved to produce the same response for the target audience. But to what extent can naturalness be exerted in the target text is somehow questionable. I mean, how natural can be seen as natural? I do think a certain degree of naturalness is vital for the readers to understand the text. However, take my own experience for example, when I was watching some sitcoms from the US, what bothered me a lot is the ‘Taiwanese’ way of translation. For instance, when some character mentioned a certain popular host/hostess in the US, what I might see on the subtitle could be ‘利菁’or ‘吳宗憲’. For me, this kind of ‘natural’ approach has already created some kind of ‘un-naturalness’. If I don’t understand a bit of English, wouldn’t it be odd for some foreign actor or actress to talk about some famous people in Taiwan? What I am trying to say here is that naturalness is not unimportant. But I do think translators should very careful when they are using the ‘naturalness’ or the dynamic equivalence approach. Otherwise, the elements intended to create the naturalness might somehow turn into an unfortunate cultural mixture.
張貼留言