浅析旅游景区公示语的汉英翻译

合集下载

边境旅游景区公示语汉英翻译现状与对策研究

《边境旅游景区公示语汉英翻译现状与对策研究》摘要：do not return”，分析可知道“one-way route”表达的确切含义就是“禁止逆行”，因此没有必要再添加“do not return”，“one-way route”在英语就是更为贴切而简洁的表达，water，watch out”，“do not play the water”在语法上是正确的，但在英语国家中，告诉游客远离危险水域时，一般使用“Danger，Plants. Do Not Step On Them ” 在语法表达上是正确的，但告知游客请勿践踏草坪时的最规范表达是“Keep off the Grass ”蒋曙美邓英凤摘要：针对崇左是知名度较高的旅游景点，如德天瀑布、明仕田园、友谊关和石景林景区等景点进行实际调查，收集错误明显或翻译不恰当的公示语进行汇总分析，从而总结出崇左旅游景点公示语的现状，发现崇左市的旅游景区公示语翻译出现译文不统一、语法错误以及缺乏英文公示语等问题，并且针对可供参考的意见及策略。

关键词：公示语;汉英翻译;策略1.研究背景为了帮助外国人的日常生活或旅行，在公共场所出现了大量的英文公示语标识。

与此同时，公示语的汉英翻译也出现了越来越多的问题。

这些问题损害了中国的国际形象，也给外国人造成了许多不便。

崇左市地处中国南部，与东南亚国家接壤，是一座重要的国际大都市，因此，完善崇左市旅游景区的英文公示语迫在眉睫。

2.崇左市旅游景区公示语汉译英存在的问题通过对崇左市边境旅游景区公示语汉译的分析，发现了公示语汉译中存在的一些问题。

2.1拼写错误一些简单的问题经常出现在公示语中，而这些问题翻译人员也能很容易避免。

虽然拼写错误可能不会引起很大的误解，但这类问题会给公众留下不好的印象。

例如：“卫生间--Restrooms”，“价格--Rrice”、“漂流路线--itenerary”。

2.2语法错误语法对我们理解句子或文章的意思是至关重要的。

浅析语用学视角下的公示语翻译

浅析语用学视角下的公示语翻译摘要：公示语的汉英翻译对我国旅游事业的国际化发展有着至关重要的作用。

然而，景区公示语翻译中存在着各种各样的问题，容易造成游客的误解，引起困扰。

在对三孔景区公示语的语用失误现象进行分析后，笔者认为语用等效是适用于公示语翻译的原则，并在此基础上，尝试提出公示语汉英翻译三原则：简明、统一、礼貌，从理论高度上指导公示语的翻译和实践。

关键词：公示语语用学三孔景区汉英翻译随着奥运会和全运会的召开，济南及周边各地如曲阜、泰安等吸引了越来越多的外国人来工作、观光旅游等，对公共场所的信息服务提出了更高的要求。

本文尝试以三孔景区公示语翻译问题为例，提出公示语汉英翻译的原则，从语用学角度探讨公示语的翻译，从而以理论的高度指导、促进翻译实践。

1 三孔景区公示语英译问题探究曲阜三孔景区内安全警示、交通指示、遗产宣传、景观景点介绍、公共设施标志等标牌设计清晰、美观，且都提供了英文翻译。

但不少公示语的翻译存在明显问题。

从笔者收集的材料来看，问题主要体现在以下几个方面。

1.1语言运用错误1.1.1拼写错误、标点误用这类错误都是公示语翻译中的低级错误，往往是由于译者粗心大意，没有认真校对或是承办单位施工时监管不力造成的，如“mansion”写成“masion”，有的景点介绍上未标明标点。

1.1.2用词不当（1）在三孔景区门外的一个综合介绍上，“世界文化遗产名录”被译为“the cultural heritage register of the world”，名录直接译成了register，让人不知所云，笔者建议翻译为“the world cultural heritage list”。

（2）孔府后花园的卫生间被译为“toilet”，事实上，无论是英语还是汉语，对于涉及人类排泄行为的词语都倾向于选择委婉语，如“restroom”。

1.1.3语法错误（1）在三孔门口的温馨提示上，“请勿穿钉鞋”翻译成了“please having no spiked shoes”，please后面一般接祈使句，而此处的动词现在分词显然不合适。

旅游景区汉英公示语的meiyong

Chapter Two Literature ReviewBefore a thorough review of literature available on the topic, let’s examine two examples, 1) 爱护文物，人人有责 (The Great Wall, App 1)A: Everybody should protect cultural relics.B: Please help to protect the cultural relics.2) 美景深藏蔚竹庵 (Mount Laoshan, App 2)A: Beautiful sights are hidden in the Weizhu Nunnery.B: For beautiful sight, please come to Weizhu Nunnery.Example 1) is a public sign at Badaling. Example 2) is a public sign in the Mount Laoshan in Qingdao. The first example calls for travelers to protect the cultural relics; the second advices travelers to visit the sight. Version A of both examples may be proper if they are used elsewhere. However in scenic spots, they are not regarded as quite satisfactory. Version As did not arouse enough attention of target readers (foreign travelers). That is they fail to exert the same effect on a target reader as the original (source text) on a source text reader (Chinese traveler). Although version Bs are different from the original in sentence structure and tone, they read more attractive. And they almost have the same functions as that of the source text. According to different purposes, the above two examples can be translated in different ways. English public signs in scenic spots are in the service of target readers. Their reaction should be taken into prime consideration. Translations in functional approach can best serve target readers. So the functional approach to translation is the key theory discussed in this thesis.2.1 Review of the Functional ApproachChristiane Nord defines “functionalism” as follows,Functionalism is a broad term for various theories that approach translation in this way. Although what will call Skopostheorie has played a major role in the development of this trend; a number of scholars subscribe to functionalism and draw inspiration from Skopostheorie without calling them anything like “skopos”. We shall thus be looking at functionalism as a broad approach, trying to distinguish between its parts wherever possibleand necessary (Nord, 2001: 1)From what Nord defines in her book, we may understand that functionalism is a broad concept, pooling together a variety of scholars and theirs approaches to translation. Functional approach includes the German school with Katharina Reiss as the founder, British scholar Peter Newmark and his semantic vs. communicative translation as well as American scholar Eugene. A. Nida and his functional equivalence.In the German school the best known names are Katharina Reiss, Hans J. Vermeer and Christiane Nord. As founder of Skopostheorie, Reiss first established a general relationship between translation strategies and text functions. Reiss’s student Vermeer put forward the concept of Skopostheorie. He defines that every translation is directed at an intended audience, since to translate means “to produce a text in a target setting for a target purpose and target addressees in target circumstances”. (Nord, 2001: 12). Later on Nord put forward the rule of “Function plus Loyalty” with regard to the limitation of Skopostheorie and the problems of radical functionalism.Peter Newmark suggests three main textual functions: informative, expressive and vocative. Different text types require different translation strategies. Semantic translation is used for expressive texts; communicative translation is used for informative and vocative texts. Of vocative texts he put forward the focus of translation is the readership. In translating informative and vocative texts, the translator is supposed to produce a version which is readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership both in content and language and he /she is justified to improve the original text if it is poorly translated. (Newmark, 1981: 42) This provides useful guidelines for the translation of public signs, which fall in to the categories of informative and vocative texts.According to Eugene Nida, the governing principle of dynamic equivalence is to “reproduce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language, first in terms of meaning, and secondly in terms of style” (Nida and Taber, 2004: 12) He explains it is essential that the target text functions in the same manner as the source text. The target readers are able to respond to it in substantially the same manner as the source text readers respond to the original text.In the following passages, the German school and Peter Newmark’s theory would bediscussed in detail.2.2 The Functional Approach2.2.1 Katharina Reiss and Her Text Typology TheoryIn 1971, Reiss in her book Possibilities and Limits of Translation Criticism developed a model of translation criticism based on the functional relationship between source and target texts. To her target text should be equivalent to source text in terms of conceptual content, linguistic form and communicative function. From this point we can see that she still took equivalence as the basis. However, in practice “she knew that real life presents situations where equivalence is not possible and in some cases, not even desired. (Nord, 2001: 9) Especially, when the target is intended to achieve a purpose or function other than that of the original. “In such a situation, she thinks that the functional perspective takes precedence over the normal standards of equivalence. Then translation critic can no longer rely on features derived from source-text analysis but has to judge whether the target text is functional in terms of the translation context”. (Nord, 2001: 9)Reiss is also aware that it is the overall text type, rather than the subdivisions that decide the type of equivalence to be sought and the translation strategy to be followed. If the text function is to provide information, then content must be preserved at all cost, and any “flourishes of style” can safely be sacrificed to that purpose, so that the translation method will be “plain-prose”. When there is a conflict between the functions of the ST and the TT, Reiss uses an “author-adapted” translation method to produce the same or at least a similar effect.She further divides text into three main types as content-focused text, form-focused text and appeal-focused text. Reiss generalizes her typology theory in the following form, (Reiss, 2000: 26)language function representation expression persuasion language dimension logic esthetics dialoguetext type content-focused(informative) form-focused(expressive)appeal-focused(operative)Content-focused text emphasizes content and the form is comparatively less important. When such a text is translated, the original information should be retained as intact as possible and the linguistic form of the translation should be adjusted to the target language conventions. For expressive text, form plays a vital role. Authors of form-focused texts such as literary prose and poetry often employ some formal elements to attain the original aesthetic effect. They should use similar form in translation to produce corresponding impression. The third type is appeal-focused text. This type intends convey information or provoke certain reaction. The translation must undergo certain adaptation to match the target language and the target culture.However there is not a pure informative, expressive or persuasive text. Reiss states that “…a further point should be clarified. If we draw a distinction between content-focused and from-focused text, this is not to imply that content-focused text do not have a form. Just as there can be no form of communication without some kind of content, there can be no kind of content that does not have some form.” (Reiss, 2000: 28) This is quite applicable for C-E translation of public signs which fall somewhere between informative and evocative (operative) text.Reiss’s text typology shed light on C-E translation of public signs. As one of foreign publicity material, public signs are classified as both the informative and evocative (operative) texts. Typology theory is particular valuable for the translators of public signs. They are encouraged to shift from the locking chains imposed by source text. The translators can hold a balance while selecting appropriate strategies to cope with various translation problems.2.2.2 Hans. J. Vermeer and His SkopostheorieSkopos is a Greek word for ‘purpose’. According to Skopostheorie, the prime principle determining any translation process is the purpose (skopos) of the overall translation action. (Nord, 2001: 27)Skopostheorie first assumes that translation must be a purposeful human activity. The purpose has three explanations: the translator’s purpose; the communicative purpose of the translated text; and the purpose to reach by exploiting certain special translation method. Usually the communicative purpose is the main purpose of the translated text.Skopostheorie also defines an intratextual coherence and intertextual coherence. Intratextual coherence implies a translation should be acceptable when it is coherent with the norms of the target culture. A communicative interaction can only be regarded successful if the receivers interpret it as being sufficiently coherent with their situation. (Nord, 2001: 32) For intertextual coherence, a translation is expected to bear some kind of relationship with the corresponding source text. Intertexual coherence should exit between source and target text. (Nord, 2001: 32) Intertextual coherence is considered subordinate to intratextual coherence and both are subordinate to the skopos rule. (Nord, 2001: 33)The theory prescribes a mode of thinking that will allow the translator to explore new approaches to the task of producing a successful target text. The theory particularly emphasizes target-orientation of translation. And it also stresses the translation situation which always determines the translation strategies to be used.This rule is intended to solve the eternal dilemmas of free vs. faithful translation, dynamic vs. formal equivalence, good interpreters vs. slavish translators and so on. It means that the skopos of a particular translation task may require a ‘free’ or a ‘faithful’ translation, or anything between these two extremes, depending on the purpose for which the translation is needed. (Nord, 2001: 29)Skopostheorie bears on C-E translation of public signs. Nord points out that “a text is made meaningful by its receiver and for its receiver.” (Nord, 2001: 31) The reaction of target readers’ should be taken into prime consideration. That is translation of public signs should be target-reader oriented.2.2.3 Christiane Nord and Her “Functions plus Loyalty”Christiane Nord further develops functional theory in the early 1990s and puts forward a rule of “Functions plus Loyalty”.Nord indicates that “My personal version of the functionalist approach stands on two pillars: function plus loyalty. Function refers to the factors that make a target text work in the intended way in the target situation. Loyalty refers to the interpersonal relationship between the translator, the source-text sender, the target-text addresses and the initiator. (Nord, 2001: 126). She holds that the translator should be responsible bilaterally for the target reader aswell as the original author. The translator should respect the source text producer and try to adjust the purpose of the target text and the source text author’s intention. The notion of loyalty not only means conveying the content and style of the source text, but also proposes necessary adaptation based on the source text in order to achieve the intended function of the target text, such as in the case of pragmatic translation. (Chen Xiaowei, 2006: 17) The principle of loyalty limits the range of justifiable target-text functions for one particular source text and raises the need for a negotiation of the translation assignment between translators and their clients. (Nord, 2001: 126). Thus the loyalty principle reduces the probability of “radical” functionalism. It is also an answer to those critics who argue that the functional approach leaves translators free to do whatever they like with any source text.The combination of function plus loyalty further improved the Skopostheorie. It grants translators some liberty in the translation process to achieve the intended function of the target text. Meanwhile it also keeps them from going far away from the original author’s intention. Moreover, Nord also proposes her documentary and instrumental translation. Documentary translation and instrumental translation are different in their emphasis on the source text and the target text. The former focused on source text, translators try to keep the language features or culture of the source text in the translated version, so this strategy is used with the classic works or serious literature. The latter resembles domestication translation, which produces equivalent effect by cultural adaptation; the target readers generally can not feel the text is a translation. The criterion for judging whether it is documentary or instrumental translation is that “the target audience is supposed to be aware or not they are reading a translation” (Nord, 2001: 50)According to Nord’s theory, translators of Chinese public signs should always bear in mind the priority of target text readers. Public signs should be translated according to the specific target functions. However it does not mean that translators have the right to change the functions at will. Any translation, regardless of its different specific purposes, should be based on the source texts.2.3 Peter Newmark and His Semantic vs. Communicative TranslationPeter Newmark’s major contribution to functionalism is his semantic translation versuscommunicative translation. “Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original” (Newmark: 1981: 39)It is quite obvious that communicative translation focuses on producing similar effect on the target readers. On the contrary, semantic translation remains within the original language convention and culture. He proposes that semantic translation is used for expressive texts and communicative translation for informative and vocative texts. That is in translating expressive texts, the expressive components should be rendered completely, original culture tend to be transferred intact and even badly and/or inaccurately written passages must remain so. However, for informative and vocative texts, the translator should focus on the accuracy of message and the main function of the source text, trying to produce an equivalent effect on target readers.He also proposes that different texts require different translation criteria and methods. He points out that for informative and vocative text the core is the accuracy of information and the readership. Accessibility and comprehensibility of the translation is very important as the reader does not anticipate difficulties or obscurities and would expect a generous transfer of foreign elements into his own culture as well as his language where necessary. (Newmark, 1981: 39)Peter Newmark’s theory also shed light on C-E translation of public signs. The translator is supposed to use language forms which read naturally to the target reader and he/she is entitled to improve the original text if it is badly and/or inaccurately written. Public signs should not be translated mechanically without an eye to the effect of the target texts on the target readers. Newmark’s semantic vs. communicative translation share some similarities with Nord’s documentary vs. instrumental translation. Semantic and documentary translations remain with the original linguistic and cultural conventions, while communicative and instrumental translations are target language oriented. But their difference is also quiet obvious. Nord holds that the skopos of the translation determines the choice of translation strategies, while Newmark proposes that the choice of translation methods is determined by the source text. However in translation practice, the methods of translation are not determined by the functionof the source text, but that of the target text. Very frequently the translation involves substantial adaptation of the source text in order to achieve the intended function of the target text.2.4 Enlightenments of the Functional Approach on C-E Translation of Public SignsAccording to Newmark’s typology (Newmark, 1981: 15), the features of public signs can be summarized from the functionalist point of view in the following graph.Functional analysis of Chinese public sings and English public signsNotes:1. Cpb: Chinese public signs; Epb: English public signs2. Culture, “low” means there are not many culture elements in public signs.3. Politeness, “low” means the public signs which do not read polite.The above graph gives us a general idea of the features of Chinese public signs and English public signs from the functional approach. Chinese public signs and English public signs are both in the service of their respective target readers. For most public signs, the source text and the target text share the same functions, informative, evocative or a combination of the two. There are other public signs: the function of the target text is different from that of the source text. An evocative public sign may be translated into an informative one or vice versa.This is because Chinese and English are different in language conventions and cultural traditions. Chinese public signs and English public signs differ in the ways they appeal to their respective readers. The source text readers (Chinese travelers) are prone to be affected by flowery expressions; while the target readers (foreign travelers) prefer more concrete information.Chinese public signs are therefore more descriptive. The language used is ornate and figurative, containing many flowery expressions like idioms or poems or quotations of famous persons’ remarks. English public signs are more informative. They read simple and concise. The language is plain and factual. When translating Chinese public signs into English, translators are usually required to apply various translation strategies, such as literal or liberal translation or adaptation.The main point of Skopostheorie is: it is the prospective function or skopos of the target text, not the source text that determines the translation process. Translators of public signs should apply various translation strategies in order to produce a version that will arouse the same effect on target text readers as that of the source text does on the source text readers.2.5 SummaryIn this part the writer discusses functional approach and its enlightenments on C-E translation of public signs. Reiss’s typology, Vermeer’s Skopostheorie, Nord’s function plus loyalty and Newmark’s semantic vs. communicative translation are the key theories involved in this chapter. According to the functional approach, it is the intended function of the target text that determines the overall translation process including the selection of translation strategies. The source text can’t be neglected either, as it serves as the main source of information. Translators of public signs should be aware of the status of target text readers. And the translations should always fulfill the need of target readers. The following chapter further explores the features and functions of public signs, giving us an insight on how functional approach applied to C-E translation in this area.Chapter Three A Functional Analysis of Public Signsin Scenic SpotsThe functional approach fits better in public signs translation as discussed in the previous chapter. The definition of a public sign, its categorization and the features are mainly discussed in the following paragraphs from the functional perspective.3.1 Definitions of Public SignsPublic signs are also called public notices, slogans, the languages of public notices, expressions on public signs.According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English1a sign is “a piece of paper, metal etc. in a public place with words or drawings on it that gives people information, warn them not to do something etc. e.g. a road sign, a no-smoking sign.”A Pubic sign can be defined as a piece of paper, metal or billboard in a public place with words or drawings on it that provides information or arouse people’s attention.The counterparts of public signs in Chinese are: 公示语、标志、标示语、告示语、标语、标牌语、标识. The most widely used one is “公示语”.Public signs and other related definitions in Chinese are as follows,1) 标语：用简短的文字写出的具有宣传鼓动作用的口号。

常州景区公示语汉英翻译研究

常州景区公示语汉英翻译研究在许多景区游览过程中，我们都会看到各种公示语，它们有的是提醒游客注意安全，有的是介绍景点的历史文化背景，有的是引导游客游览路线。

今天我们就来探讨一下常州景区公示语的汉英翻译问题。

常州是江苏省的一个美丽城市，有许多优美的景区，比如是南山竹海、溧阳燕子岛、新北里古镇等。

在这些景区中，公示语的汉英翻译质量对游客的体验非常重要。

下面我将针对公示语的汉英翻译问题进行分析，一、中式英语用词的问题有些景区公示语中使用了大量的中式英语，比如“环境清幽”，“风景优美”，“乘凉赏景”等。

这些词语可能在汉语中很常见，但在英语中并不是很自然。

因此，我们应该采用更加准确自然的表达方式。

例如，可以将“环境清幽”翻译为“serene environment”，“风景优美”翻译为“scenic beauty”，“乘凉赏景”翻译为“enjoy the cool breeze and beautiful view”。

二、根据文化背景进行翻译每个景区都有自己的历史文化背景，公示语的汉英翻译应该能够传达出这些文化信息。

例如，在南山竹海的公示语中，就可以使用“bamboo sea”这个词语来翻译“竹海”，因为英文中并没有“竹海”的概念。

三、准确传达安全信息公示语中的安全信息应该非常准确，能够清晰地传达给游客。

例如，在溧阳燕子岛的公示语中，安全提示“请勿在石墩上攀爬活动”，应该翻译为“Do not climb on the stone pillars”，而不是“Do not climb on the stone activities”，因为在英文中没有“活动”这个单词表示物体。

总体来说，常州景区公示语的汉英翻译应该能够准确地传达文化信息，具有自然流畅的表达方式，让游客理解并且注意安全。

这样，游客在游览景区时，才能更好地感受到这个美丽城市的魅力。

浅谈黔东南地区旅游景点公示语的汉英翻译

塑
豳
宣
浅谈黔东南地区旅游景点公示语的汉英翻译
④ 王山
５６０）５００（凯里学院外国语学院，州凯里贵
ｌ摘

要】公示语指城市或城镇的标识，指示牌、路牌、标语、单位名称、特别通告等。近年来，黔东南
其独特的民族文化和美丽的自然风光吸引了众多的国内外游客，公示语也因此得到广泛运用。但由于语言文
ｖｒｕｒｂｅｓｉｉｅｅａｉｓｐｏｌｍＣｈｎｓ－Ｅｎｉｈｔａｓａｉｎｏｕｌｉｎ，ｗｈｃｒｖｎｍｏｅｃｍｐｉａｅｃｎｃｏｎｇｌｒｎｌｔｆｂｉｓｇｓｓｏｐｃｉｈａｅｅｅｒｏｌｔｄｉｓｅｉｃｎ
化差异等原因，公示语在汉英翻译上存在不少问题，黔东南旅游景点公示语的汉英翻译问题更为复杂。本文
分析其中存在的问题并提出可行解决办法。
Ｉ关键词】黔东南：旅游景点；公示语：汉英翻译
ｔｕｉｔｒｏｒｓｆＯｍｏｈｈｍｅａｄａｒａｈｎｓｔｓｐｃｌｒｅｈｉｃｌｅｎａｕａｂａｔ．Ｐｂｉｉｓｓｂｔｏｎｂｏｄｔａｋｏｉｅｕｉｔｎｃｕｔｓａｄｎｔｒｌｅｕｙｔａｕｒｕｌｓｇｎｃ

景点公示语中英对照收集

景点公示语中英对照收集1.欢迎光临！Welcome!2.请勿随地乱扔垃圾。

Please do not litter.3.禁止吸烟。

No smoking.4.为确保您的安全，请遵守规定。

To ensure your safety, please follow the regulations.5.请保持安静。

Please keep quiet.6.请勿触摸展品。

Please do not touch the exhibits.7.请勿攀爬树木或其他设施。

Please do not climb trees or other facilities.8.注意保管好您的贵重物品。

Please keep your valuables safe.9.请勿擅自进入私人区域。

Please do not enter private areas without permission.10.请勿摄影。

No photography.11.请勿违规使用无人机。

Please do not use drones without permission.12.请勿喂食动物。

Please do not feed the animals.13.请尊重动植物，爱护环境。

Please respect the animals and plants, and protect the environment.14.穿高跟鞋进入部分区域需谨慎。

Please be cautious when entering certain areas wearing high heels.15.请不要随意碰动或更改展示布置。

Please do not touch or alter the exhibition layout.16.禁止带宠物入内。

No pets allowed.17.禁止骑行。

No cycling.18.请遵守交通规则，保持公共秩序。

Please abide by traffic rules and maintain public order.19.请勿在景区内乱扔烟蒂。

旅游公示语英译中中式英语现象探究

旅游公示语英译中中式英语现象探究随着经济的发展，越来越多的外国游客来中国观光旅行。

旅游公示语英译作为国际交流与沟通的重要桥梁，对树立我国的国际形象起着至关重要的作用。

因此，旅游公示语翻译中存在的问题不容小觑。

本文分别从语言、语用、文化的角度对景区公示语英译中存在的中式英语现象进行分析，并给出提高旅游公示语翻译质量的对策。

一、中式英语概述什么是中式英语？李文中将其定义为“中国学习者与使用者由于受母语的干扰和影响，硬套汉语规则和习惯，在英语交际中出现的不合规范或不合英语文化习惯的畸形英语”。

通俗来讲，我们习惯了中文的表达习惯，就会在英语表达中不自觉地带入中文的味道，这就产生了中式英语。

造成这种畸形英语的原因有两个。

其一是母语负迁移。

母语负迁移又称为“干扰”，即母语模式或规则不适用于目的语。

在负迁移的影响下，信息不能得到有效的传递，即源语的信息和内容不能在目的语中得到充分的体现。

负迁移很容易造成字面直译的语言错误。

比如说，“欢迎您来青岛！”人们会把它翻译成“Welcome you to visit Qingdao！”这是典型的中式英语。

其二是思维模式。

在漫长的历史过程中，各民族由于不同的文化、历史背景，形成了各不相同的思维模式。

表现之一在于英语强调形合，注重句子结构的完整性和句子中各成分之间的联系;而中国人则强调意合，注重意义的连贯表达。

二、旅游公示语英译中中式英语现象浅析（一）语言层面1.拼写错误拼写错误是旅游公示语英译中最常见、最基本的错误。

它通常表现为缺少或增加一个字母。

这类错误可能是由于翻译人员英语水平不高或者粗心大意造成的，也可能是制作者没有做好校译工作。

比如说，将“团体售票”译成了“Group Visitor Ticlet”。

这不仅会给外国游客造成误解，还有失国际形象。

2.语法错误旅游公示语英译中除了拼写错误，还存在语法错误。

译者对英语语言运用的规律和法则掌握不到位，翻译过程中比较随意，这就很容易出现词性误用、冠词遗漏、动词形式不当、单复数使用不正确等语法错误。

三亚旅游景区公示语英译实例剖析

三亚旅游景区公示语英译实例剖析Sanya Tourism Scenic Area Publicity Language Example Analysis三亚是一个美丽的海滨城市，拥有着独特的自然风光和悠久的人文历史。

其旅游资源也非常丰富，拥有着诸多的著名景区。

在这些景区中，公示语是非常重要的宣传工具。

下面是几个三亚旅游景区公示语的英译实例剖析。

1. 天涯海角公示语：一生必去的地方，一定要来看看。

英译：A must-visit place in your lifetime, you must come and see.分析：公示语采用短小精悍的形式，抓住了人们对旅游的好奇心和探索欲。

同时，因为“天涯海角”在国内知名度很高，公示语使用了惯用表达法，更容易被人们所接受。

2. 蜈支洲岛公示语：缤纷活力，热情岛屿。

英译：Colorful energy, passionate island.分析：公示语用简短的语言概括了这座小岛的特色，突出了其富有个性和生机勃勃的特点。

同时，使用了带有情感色彩的词语，增强了销售力和感染力。

3. 大东海公示语：梦幻海洋，让你畅游在海与天之间。

英译：Dreamy ocean, allowing you to swim between the sea and the sky.分析：公示语充分利用了口感化手法，“梦幻”编织出了一个童话般的海洋世界。

同时，使用了“畅游”这个词语，让人们感受到无拘无束的快感。

4. 亚龙湾公示语：碧波荡漾，沙滩细腻，阳光充沛。

英译：Rippling blue waves, fine sandy beaches, abundant sunshine.分析：公示语采用三个形容词来形容亚龙湾的美丽，给人们留下深刻的印象。

其中“沙滩细腻”运用了形象思维，具有很高的感染力和描绘力。

5. 南山寺公示语：沉醉于佛光，静享宁静。

英译：Immerse in the Buddha's light, enjoy the tranquility in silence.分析：公示语通过运用对比手法，突出了佛教文化的特征，创造了一个祥和的氛围。

地方旅游景区公示语翻译现状分析及建议

2422019年39期总第479期ENGLISH ON CAMPUS地方旅游景区公示语翻译现状分析及建议文/孙婉悦　陈媛媛翻译中语法错误会使游客感到困惑，但是语法错误这个问题如果仔细认真检查，那么还是容易避免的。

3.中式英语。

汉语的翻译通常喜欢拟人化，但这会导致一些译者翻译不当。

有的公园的草坪会为了不让游客践踏，通常会在草坪上放一个牌子并且写一些话，比如“寸草寸心，人人呵护”，这就被译为“Grass has heart, it needs care.”, 看完这句话，外国人肯定内心充满疑惑，这个牌子上面为什么会写“草”这种植物有“心”。

所以我们大可不必根据中文翻译，可以简单明了地说“Keep off the grass，please！”通常来说，这是符合外国人逻辑思维的。

在这种公示语翻译中，汉语翻译经常会呈现出诗情画意的效果，它会渲染烘托气氛，给人一种很想到此地一游的冲动。

但是英文的介绍很注重实质，通常都是用简洁的语言直接表达含义。

有些译者并没有注意到这个差异，直接相互翻译，这就会使复杂唯美的汉语到英语语境中，不但不美反而会让外国游客不知道其含义。

二、景区公示语翻译出现问题的原因1.译者的专业素养。

上面我们提到汉语和英语的表达方式是不一样的，而且中西方的文化也不一样,所以这就要求译者要具有很强的翻译水平。

但有时可能翻译的词是正确的，但是这个词却没有表达出真正想表达的含义，那么翻译出来的也就是错误的。

有些译者并不是很了解景区公示语翻译的原则，对景区知识掌握不透彻，导致翻译后的公示语缺乏严谨性和正确性，从而产生原则性的错误。

另外，翻译公示语还要求译者知识面广，熟知景点的历史背景，自然、社会、人文等等各方面。

这样可以把旅游的相关信息准确无误地表达出来，同时犯错误的可能性也会小很多。

2.忽略中外文化的差异。

从古至今，我们都知道中西方无论是政治、经济、文化还有其他方面都各不相同，所以中西方的思维方式和表达方式也大都不一样。

浅析旅游景区公示语翻译——以宁波著名景区为例

二、区公示语的功能景
此处的翻译有明显的拼写错误、法错误和表达缺陷。语英语公示语中常使用 “ ｏ字短句，Ｎ＋词／ｏｇａｏｅ、Ｎ ” 如ｏ名ｄｉ＋ｌｗｄｎｌ
ａｃｔ．ｓ”
。

ｎ＋词／ｏｇｎｔｄｉｅ等来强调 “ 止 ” 而该译文中的ｏ名ｄｉ、ｏａｍｔｄｎｔ禁。 “ ｏ字短句中却无端地多出了一个 “ ｅ，画蛇添足。至于Ｎ” ｂ” ｐｏｉｉ的用法．示 “ 允许 ” “ 止 ” ｒｈｂｔ ” 表不或禁的表达为 “ ｅｐｏｉ．ｂｒｈｂ
者、外宾客、华外籍人士、外旅游经商的中国公民等，海驻在涉及衣、、、、、、食住行游娱购行为与需求的基本公示文字信息内容都在公示语的研究范畴之内。本文将研究范畴锁定至旅游景区，旨在研究公示给旅游者、游等景区相关人员，及景区内游览、乐等公示文字导涉娱信息内容，主要包括导游图、票价、点解说、区设施说明等景景景区内公示语翻译。者以宁波旅游景区为考察对象，访了笔走天一阁博物馆、祝文化公园、国寺、口国家级旅游风景梁保溪区、龙湖风景区、钱湖风景区、城古县城等宁波著名景九东慈区．得了第一手的实地公示语语料。取

开题报告-浅析旅游景区公示语特征及其英译

开题报告填写要求1．开题报告（含“文献综述”）作为毕业论文答辩委员会对学生答辩资格审查的依据材料之一。

此报告应在指导教师指导下，由学生在毕业论文工作前期内完成，经指导教师签署意见及所在专业审查后生效。

2．开题报告内容必须用黑墨水笔工整书写或按此电子文档标准格式（可从外语系网页上下载）打印，禁止打印在其它纸上后剪贴，完成后应及时交给指导教师签署意见。

3．“文献综述”应按论文的格式成文，并直接书写（或打印）在本开题报告第一栏目内，学生写文献综述的参考文献应不少于15篇（不包括辞典、手册），其中至少应包括5-8篇外文资料。

对于重要得参考文献应附原件复印件，作为附件装订在开题报告的最后。

4．统一用A4纸，并装订单独成册，随《毕业设计论文》等资料装入文件袋中。

1．文献综述：结合毕业论文课题情况，根据所查阅的文献资料，撰写2500-3000字左右的文献综述，文后应列出所查阅的文献资料。

随着中国融入全球化经济，中国与世界各国的交流不断增多，例如，加入WTO、2008年北京成功举办奥运会及上海世博会等，这些显示了中国在国际舞台上扮演越来越重要的角色。

近些年来，越来越多的国家希望了解中国，许多外国朋友纷至沓来。

特别是中国旅游风景名胜区，每年接待的外国游客越来越多。

为了方便外国友人，我国旅游景区就必须提供英语公示语。

旅游景区公示语主要指的是旅游景区公开和面对旅游者的告示、指示、提示、警示、标示等文字及图形信息，涉及到食、宿、行、游、娱、购等日常生活的方方面面。

在旅游景区内，游客最为集中，与旅游宣传册、地图、宣传单等相比，公示语更加引人注目集中，更加直截了当地发挥其信息指示功能。

由于旅游公示语需要及时满足的是社会公众和旅游者的直接社会、行为和心理需求，也反映了生活在这个社会群体的整体文化素质、道德修养和精神面貌，是一个国家对外交流水平和人文环境的具体体现。

因此其翻译质量将会响到游客的旅游线路、兴致、感受及印象，进而间接影响我国旅游业的发展。

旅游景点公示语翻译

公示语的功能
• 公示语使用简短的语言或图示形式向社会公众提供一定的信息，具有指示、提示、限制和强制于本馆茶座收银处有售，可同时载两人。票价：每次澳门币十五元整。 Maritime Museum Tickets for the simulator are available at the cash desk of the snack bar. Price: MOP$ 15.00 for a ride of 2 persons
第一模块：热身练习
• • • • • •
Baggage Depository 存包处 No tipping 谢绝小费紧急通道，请勿将手提物品搁置地上! Emergency passage! Place no hand luggage on the floor.
• 非公莫入! • Staff Only! • 为了您的安全，请您输入密码时确保身后等候者不会知觉。 • For your safety, please make sure that the one behind you does not pay attention while you enter your password. • 12岁以下儿童免费。 • Free for children under 12.
• The Li Bai Memorial, located by the beautiful Changming River in Jiangyou city, is the biggest example of Tang-style courtyard architecture in China. Its unique garden scenes, extensive and magnificent art collections, excellent guides and interpreters, and academic significance combine to make it a culture treasure and a must-visit site for tourists enroute to Jiuzhaigou.

旅游景区公示语英译问题

浅谈旅游景区公示语英译问题【摘要】本文在分析公示语的种类和语言风格的基础上归纳了洛阳龙门石窟景区公示语的翻译中存在的普遍错误，例如拼写错误、语法错误、用词不当和句式中国化等等，作者指出旅游景区内公示语的翻译现状不容乐观。

针对这些错误，作者探究其原因主要是译者和标牌制作者粗心、译者语言功底欠佳以及缺乏统一的监管机制，认为公示语英译需增强校对人员工作的认真度和责任感，加强翻译人员的英文水准，并建立相应的翻译责任制。

【关键词】公示语；汉英翻译；原因；解决方法引言随着洛阳龙门石窟国际知名度的不断提高,来洛阳龙门石窟旅游的外国游客日益增多,旅游景区标识语的翻译问题也越来越重要，加强对公示语运用的研究显得尤为重要和迫切。

本文就洛阳龙门石窟旅游景区公示语的英译问题进行探讨,并提出在洛阳龙门石窟旅游景区公示语英译时应注意的几个问题及一些解决方案。

公示语从广义而言,指给公众在公共场合看的语言文字,也称为“公共标识语”,“标志语”、“标示语”、“标语”等。

公示语指公开和面对公众，告示、指示、提示、显示、警示、标示与其生活、生产、生命、生态、生业休戚相关的文字及图形信息，具有“指示性”、“提示性”、“限制性”和“强制性”四种突出的应用功能。

（吕和发2004）。

在翻译时候广泛使用名词、动词、动名词、词组、短语、缩略语、现在时态、祈使句和规范性、标准性词汇，以及部分具有本土特征的词汇。

（北竹，单爱民2002）1 旅游公示语的英译常见错误类型2012年8月23号是一年一度的七夕情人节，为了颂扬忠贞爱情、展现珍贵历史瑰宝、倡导发扬和传承中国传统节日，龙门石窟景区特举办“七夕，相约龙门共祈福”活动,向所有爱浪漫的游客开启浪漫之旅。

这一活动不仅将洛阳龙门石窟全方位地呈现给河南人民，也呈现给了喜爱中国这一传统节日的外国友人，使其逐渐与国际接轨。

但是，通过在龙门石窟景区内采集大量例子分析发现其公示语的翻译整体上做得不错，但部分旅游公示语的翻译却欠国际化，存在着些许缺憾，主要有以下几类：1.1 拼写错误：拼写错误在公示语的英译中比比皆是，这种低级错误大多是由于译者或者标牌制作者粗心、不负责任、没有认真校对造成的，例如：“会伤人请勿靠近wanring:dang deous please keep away ”这是龙门石窟景区龙门山山路旁的一个公示语，且不说语法和措辞是否得当，区区五个字的公示语就出现了两个拼写错误，此处“wanring”和“dang deous”应为“warning”和“dangerous”。

三亚旅游景区公示语英译实例剖析论文

三亚旅游景区公示语英译实例剖析论文“公示语”意思是给公众在公众场合看的文字语言，是人们生活中最常见的实用语言，是一种公开和面对公众的，以达到某种交际目的的特殊文体。

公示语在我们生活中应用广泛，几乎随处可见，例如路标、广告牌、商店招牌、公共场所的宣传语、旅游简介等等。

公示语是国际化都市、国际旅游目的地语言环境、人文环境的重要组成部分。

以下是店铺今天为大家精心准备的：三亚旅游景区公示语英译实例剖析相关论文。

文章仅供参考阅读，希望能帮助到大家。

三亚旅游景区公示语英译实例剖析全文如下：一、前言作为旨为公众服务的语言形式，旅游公示语在指明方向、道路方面，在对游客行为进行规范、安全提示、警示或限制中都举足轻重。

旅游公示语质量是国际化都市、旅游目的地语言环境和人文环境的重要组成部分。

其能综合体现旅游目的地信息服务环境及水平。

为此，本文对三亚旅游景区公示语翻译存在“不得体”问题进行评析、归因，并提出相应的修改对策，旨在改善旅游景区的翻译现象，为海南旅游宣传提供有价值的参考。

二、公示语翻译研究概述公示语误翻是普遍性问题，引起国内外专家学者和媒体的重视。

佛雷泽?赛特尔在《公共关系实践中》举了些公示语在一些国际旅游中的应用实例。

Doug Lansky 将其在世界各地收集到的错误公示语出版在Signspotting里(吕和发，蒋璐，王同军，等，2011)。

2003年北京第二外国语学院系统总结了公示语翻译问题。

王银泉则从语用角度分析公示语翻译问题并认为约定俗成是标识语英译中不可忽视的翻译原则。

而在公示语翻译策略方面，国内专家学者比较认同模仿、借用、创新三种常用翻译方法。

当然，为达到对外交流和宣传的效果，应视具体情况而灵活采取以上策略(刘美岩，胡毅，2009)。

总之，公示语翻译研究内容、视角、方法呈现多样化。

北京、上海等城市创建了自己的公示语翻译标准和模式，为国内公示语译文标准提供有价值的参考。

三、三亚旅游景区公示语英译实例剖析经实地调研总结，多语共牌是三亚旅游景区公示语牌的特点之一。

旅游景区公示语翻译例析——以青岛海底世界为例

旅游景区公示语翻译例析——以青岛海底世界为例摘要：随着旅游业的蓬勃发展，青岛市的旅游景点也成了许多境外游客选择的热门旅游目的地。

青岛海底世界作为青岛的知名景点，准确、恰当的标公示语翻译对提升青岛国际形象、传播青岛特色文化等起着重要作用。

本文整理分析青岛海底世界景区内公示语的翻译失误并提出解决方案，对无基础性错误译文提出优化方案，希望对景区公示语的优化提供借鉴。

关键词：公示语英译；青岛海底世界；改进措施一、引言公示语，又名标识语，被称为是“城市的面孔”，是应用于社会公共场合的一种特殊语言现象。

“公示语”一词首次出现在 2002 年《北京第二外国语学院学报》第六期《谈英语公示用语的语言特点与汉英翻译》一文中，近几年在翻译领域受到越来越多的关注。

公示语具有很强的语言功能和社会价值，在一定程度上反映一个国家、一个地区、一个民族的世界观和价值取向（张娅、禹逸群、曹丽莎，2012) ，因此景区公示语的翻译不仅可以传递信息，更可以传播旅游城市的文化。

公示语是一种单向的信息输出，对其的翻译要充分考虑游客的接受程度，还要符合其所属的语域文化特征。

有着“东方瑞士”之称的青岛，是国家首批沿海开放城市和全国重点风景旅游城市。

青岛海底世界是在青岛水族馆的基础上兴建的，由蔡元培先生亲自剪彩，作为城市的名片，毋庸置疑地成了外国游客来青岛旅游时的必选之地，景区内公示语的翻译准确与否，反映了当地旅游业服务的水平。

但是笔者调研发现，景区的公示语英译存在一些问题，本文将依据《公共服务领域英文译写规范》（以下简称《规范》) 和《青岛市公共标识英文译法通则》（以下简称《通则》），分析青岛海底世界公示语翻译存在的问题，并尝试提出改善对策，以期给当地旅游部门提供借鉴。

二、景区公示语翻译特点旅游公示语主要使用在旅游景点以及相关的服务场所，常向游客传递导向、警示、服务等重要信息。

公示语有四大分类，即指示性、提示性、限制性和强制性。

指示性公示语向游客指明旅游景区内的设施、场地的具体方向，指示行走路线和目标位置等，译文根据不同内容长度不定，具有说明和宣传作用。

旅游景点英文公示语翻译浅析

旅游景点英文公示语翻译浅析--以南京为例
内容摘要
引言
1.公示语
1.1公示语的定义和功能特点
1.2公示语文体特点以及汉英翻译
1.3公示语的语言特征及翻译策略
2.南京景点公示语翻译现状
2.1误译或不准确翻译
2.2中式英语机械对译
2.3同名异议
2.4语用失当
3.导致错误的原因
3.1语言功底不够，翻译能力低下
3.2文化差距
3.3政府机关机构管理不完善
4.解决方案
4.1直接采用国际通用表达方式
4.2间接借用目的语的表达方式
4.3注意英汉文化差异，将译文读者的文化习惯放在首位
5.结语。

旅游景点公示语的英译探析

旅游景点公示语的英译探析【摘要】近年来，许多城市和旅游景点公示语的英译存在诸多不规范问题。

本文介绍了公示语的概念和分类，并以辽宁省为例，分析了旅游景点公示语英译中存在的问题，最后提出了相应对策，以期改变现状，促进旅游经济的发展。

【关键词】公示语；旅游景点；英译；探析近年来，随着大批外国游客的涌入，我国旅游业不断蓬勃发展。

目前，旅游业业已成为辽宁省内经济发展的重要产业之一。

由此，为了吸引更多的外国游客，省内各城市普遍加大了旅游景点内公示语的使用力度。

好的英文公示语可以改善景点的人文环境，传播景点文化，扩大旅游宣传，提升旅游品牌。

[1]除此之外，和谐的英语公示语环境可以提升城市的国际化形象，加快旅游经济发展步伐。

[2]由此可见，旅游景点公示语的英译至关重要。

但目前，省内各旅游景点公示语的英译出现诸多不规范之处。

本文旨在通过指出和分析这些典型的错误，提出改进建议，以期改变现状，提高景区的形象。

一、公示语的概念及分类（一）公示语的概念公示语是指公开和面对公众，告示、指示、提示、显示、警示、标示与其生活、生产、生命、生态休戚相关的文字及图形信息。

[3] 简单地说，是给公众在公众场合看，以达到某种交际目的的文字语言及图示。

针对旅游景区，公示语现已被广泛地运用于旅游景点、旅游服务等方面。

（二）公示语的分类按公示语的应用功能，分为五类：1.指示性公示语。

其功能在于指示服务的内容。

如：Nursing Room母婴室；Information问询服务等。

2.提示性公示语。

其功能是为公众提供便利，引导公众在公共场所进行活动。

如：Wet Paint油漆未干；Out of Order故障维修等。

3.警示性公示语。

其功能是告诫公众注意和防范潜在的危险。

如：Mind Your Head小心碰头；Fasten Your Seat Belt请系上安全带等。

4.限制性公示语。

其功能是约束公众的行为，用语常常直接但不强硬。

如：Stand in Line站队等候；Ticket Only凭票入场等。